the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
The sensitivity of EC-Earth3 decadal predictions to the choice of volcanic forcing dataset: Insights for the next major eruption
Abstract. Large volcanic eruptions can have significant climatic impacts. Due to their unpredictable nature, such eruptions can render operational decadal forecasts inaccurate. To benefit from the strong climate signals they exert, which enhance climate predictability, decadal forecasts must be rerun with updated estimates of the stratospheric sulfate aerosol evolution. Two tools to rapidly generate the volcanic forcings are the Easy Volcanic Aerosol (EVA, Toohey et al., 2016) and its updated version, EVA_H (Aubry et al., 2020). In order to validate the use of the volcanic forcings generated with these simple models in decadal forecasts, we compare the volcanic forcings generated with EVA and EVA_H with CMIP6 for the recent eruptions of Mount Agung (1963), El Chichón (1982) and Mount Pinatubo (1991) and investigate the consistency in their associated climate responses in decadal predictions produced with the BSC decadal forecast system. Our findings reveal differences in the magnitude and latitudinal structure of the forcings generated by EVA and EVA_H compared to the official CMIP6 forcings, particularly for the eruptions of Mount Agung and El Chichón. These differences in the volcanic forcings lead to some global and regional quantitative differences in the predicted radiative responses, as evidenced in variables like the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) net radiative fluxes, surface temperature, and lower stratospheric temperature. Despite these differences, comparing the predicted anomalies in those variables with observations, we show that either of the forcings considered allows to make skillful predictions after the major volcanic eruptions. Our study thus supports both EVA and EVA_H generated forcings as reasonable choices for predicting the post-volcanic radiative responses.
- Preprint
(6905 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2468 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 May 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-609', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Mar 2025
reply
I don’t see what is new here compared to another paper just published by this group, Bilbao et al. (2024). Is it just by adding one forcing data set, EVA_H? And since Bilbao et al. (2024) used multiple climate models, why does this paper use only one, and how was it chosen? How model-dependent are the results?
Abstracts should not include references.
The abstract has acronyms that are not defined or explained. What is EVA? What is EVA_H? How do they differ? What is BSC? What is CMIP6?
There are English errors in the abstract. Did the native English speaker authors not edit the paper?
“Despite these differences, comparing the predicted anomalies in those variables with observations, we show that either of the forcings considered allows to make skillful predictions after the major volcanic eruptions.” should be “Despite these differences, comparing the predicted anomalies in those variables with observations, we show that either the EVA or EVA_H forcing would allow skillful predictions to be made after major volcanic eruptions.”
I think the last two sentences (after English correction) of the abstract are fundamentally wrong: “Despite these differences, comparing the predicted anomalies in those variables with observations, we show that either the EVA or EVA_H forcing would allow skillful predictions to be made after major volcanic eruptions. Our study thus supports both EVA and EVA_H generated forcings as reasonable choices for predicting the post-volcanic radiative responses.”
How do you define “skillful?” How do you define “reasonable?” The problems, as discussed below, are that these forcing data sets cannot be created just after an eruption. The location of the eruption and the satellite-observed SO2 emissions are not enough. Also, the EVA algorithm is too diffusive, and the paper shows that they do not produce the correct latitudinal distribution for the three eruptions studied. And there is no consideration of ENSO and interactions with volcanic eruptions.
And why would you want to use either of these forcings after a large volcanic eruption, when models now exist to quickly simulate the conversion of the observed SO2 injections into sulfate aerosols, and the transport and radiative forcing from those aerosols? And these can be updated every month incorporating new observations of how the climate and volcanic aerosol cloud are evolving.
The use of EVA is very problematic, because how is it possible to know the latitudinal extent of the stratospheric cloud a priori? The 1982 El Chichón and 1991 Pinatubo eruptions were only 2.2° different in latitude, but their clouds ended up centered 15° apart, due to the winds on the day of the eruption. How can the hemispheric asymmetry be known ahead of time?
In fact, Fig. 2 shows that because of the low latitudinal resolution of the EVAs, the observed hemispheric asymmetry of both 1963 Agung and 1982 El Chichón is not reproduced correctly. This is an additional problem.
Some minor issues:
SO2 needs to be spelled with the 2 as a subscript.
Why is the mass of S used in Table S1 and SO2 in Table S2? This is confusing.
The table headings in Tables S1 and S2 should not have words broken into two lines. This is easy to fix.
El Chichón is spelled with an accent mark on the o, but this is not consistent in the text or in the figures.
Why does Fig. 4 not include observations? Why are the observations relegated to a different section?
There were El Niños after each of the eruptions studied. This would have a huge impact on the short term seasonal and annual forecasts, especially after El Chichón in 1982, when most of the cooling from the volcanic eruption was offset by the warming from the El Niño. How was this taken into account?
What do the “syear” labels on each panel in Figs. 4 and 8 mean?
“Notably” and “most notably” and “Note that” are used throughout the paper. What do these mean? They should be deleted. Every sentence should be noted or it should not be in the paper.
Fig. 6: The parts of the maps that are NOT significant should be hatched, rather than the significant parts. Don’t cover the results you want the reader to see.
Fig. 6: The temperature changes in the panel labels need units. And why do panels f and i only have one digit after the decimal point, while all the other have two?
There should be a figure added with the Northern Hemisphere winter responses after each eruption for the first winter, too, to see if the model can reproduce the observed winter warming over Eurasia.
The Deep-C version 5 dataset is mentioned several times but never explained. What is it?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-609-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
24 | 7 | 2 | 33 | 4 | 1 | 3 |
- HTML: 24
- PDF: 7
- XML: 2
- Total: 33
- Supplement: 4
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 22 | 40 |
France | 2 | 5 | 9 |
China | 3 | 3 | 5 |
Spain | 4 | 3 | 5 |
Netherlands | 5 | 3 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 22