| 11 May 2026
Lagrangian investigation of GCMs during the 2014–15 Holuhraun eruption reveals large differences in the representation of aerosol size distribution
Abstract. Our ability to understand and predict future climate scenarios remains limited by significant uncertainties in climate modelling, particularly those related to aerosol-cloud interactions (ACI). The Holuhraun eruption (2014–2015) provides an ideal opportunity to investigate ACI, with peak daily sulphur dioxide (SO2) emission rates exceeding that of all anthropogenic sources in Europe. In this study we perform the first Lagrangian evaluation of aerosol processes associated with an effusive volcanic perturbation that combines in-situ aerosol particle number size distribution (PNSD) from rural in-situ sites with air mass back-trajectories to understand differences in general circulation model (GCM) representations. Holuhraun significantly impacted the observed PNSD at the three sites considered, showing a consistent increase in the accumulation modal diameter and evidence of sustained growth during transport from new particle formation (NPF) in the plume. ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3 did not replicate the observed sustained growth from NPF events, instead the volcanic perturbation was associated with growth of pre-existing particles, contributing to the mass of aerosol. Contrastingly, UKESM1.0 demonstrated no increase in the modal diameter during the eruption period. The inclusion of organic-mediated boundary layer nucleation (BLN) into UKESM1.0 (UKESM-BLN), enabled a considerably better representation of PNSD changes. UKESM-BLN replicated the increase in accumulation mode diameter, as well as sustained NPF events, although it considerably overestimated number concentrations of Aitken mode particles. Investigating the perturbation in cloud condensation nuclei during the eruption year demonstrated that UKESM-BLN better replicated the perturbation at the boreal sites, highlighting the importance of BLN processes in accurate representation of ACI in GCMs.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.
The manuscript entitled “Lagrangian investigation of GCMs during the 2014-15 Holuhraun eruption reveals large differences in the representation of aerosol size distribution” is well written, clearly presented, and thoroughly documented. I thank the authors for conducting a comprehensive analysis of the selected GCMs and their ability to simulate aerosol transport and PNSD. The methodology is robust, well explained, and sufficiently detailed to allow reproducibility. The results are clearly presented and discussed. Overall, I recommend publication after minor revisions.
Specific Comments
Section 3.1
The authors may consider using the Sulfur Oxidation Ratio (SOR), defined as SO4/(SO2+ SO4). SOR is a commonly used metric to quantify the conversion of SO2 to sulfate and can provide useful insight into sulfur oxidation processes and aerosol aging. It may also help identify environments where aqueous or heterogeneous oxidation pathways are important. A similar analysis could potentially strengthen the discussion associated with Figure 10. Ref-( Rogers, M. J., Joo, T., Hass-Mitchell, T., Canagaratna, M. R., Campuzano-Jost, P., Sueper, D., Tran, M. N., Machesky, J. E., Roscioli, J. R., Jimenez, J. L., Krechmer, J. E., Lambe, A. T., Nault, B. A., and Gentner, D. R.: Humid summers promote urban aqueous‐phase production of oxygenated organic aerosol in the northeastern United States, Geophys. Res. Lett., 52, e2024GL112005, https://doi.org/10.1029/2024gl112005, 2025.)
In addition, UKESM and UKESM-BLN appear to show similar SO₂ concentrations. How similar are the sulfate concentrations in these two models? Comparing the SOR values between them may help explain differences in sulfate production and the underlying oxidation mechanisms.
Figure 6-UKESM-BLN appears to exhibit some signatures of banana-shaped growth patterns, although these features are relatively short-lived. There also seems to be a recurring burst of nucleation during the early morning hours from days 11–16. This repetitive pattern may suggest a role of photochemistry, with increasing oxidant production after sunrise promoting particle formation. It would be interesting if the authors could discuss the dominant mechanisms controlling nucleation in these simulations.
Line 575- ECHAM has prescribed oxidants from climatology, do they have a diurnal cycle attached? Can this affect the mechanisms that control NPF?
General Figure Presentation
Several figures could potentially be enlarged for improved readability. Reducing label sizes and using common color bars where appropriate may help maximize the plotting area. For example, in Figure 10, the (DD-MM-YYYY) date labels could potentially be shown only on the bottom row of panels, and the rest of the panels may only account for (DD), allowing more space for the plot. If space permits, including a 100 nm tick mark on the y-axis may also help readers identify the approximate boundary of the Aitken mode.
Section 3.3 – Figure 10
The observed volcanic PNSD exhibits a bimodal structure, characterized by a pronounced Aitken mode and a secondary accumulation mode. Several models reproduce this behavior, although with varying degrees of uncertainty. Could the authors discuss the physical processes responsible for this bimodal structure? For example, does it reflect a combination of newly formed particles that have grown into the Aitken mode together with condensational growth on pre-existing particles along the transport pathway?
In addition, ECHAM appears to show an unusually strong nucleation mode at Zeppelin, which is relatively far from the volcanic source. Could the authors comment on whether this feature reflects a systematic model bias or a specific process represented in the model?
Line 505-The authors mention a significant contribution from gas-phase oxidation. Could they clarify whether the precursor gases responsible for this oxidation are primarily volcanic in origin, or whether background sulfur species also contribute?
Line 600-How is the contribution from pre-existing sulfate separated from newly formed sulfate? Is the source of sulfate known in this analysis? Clarifying whether the sulfate was already present in the atmosphere or was produced through new particle formation in the volcanic plume and subsequent growth would be helpful.
Introduction
It would be useful to provide a brief description of the volcanic emissions. For example:
Such information would help place the modeling results into context.
Minor Comments