the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Stratospheric aerosol forcing for CMIP7 (part 2): Volcanic sulfur dioxide emissions
Abstract. Explosive volcanic sulfur emissions into the stratosphere form sulfate aerosol particles which are an important driver of climate variability. Volcanic sulfur emissions are required both by climate models using interactive stratospheric aerosol schemes, as well as simpler volcanic aerosol models typically used to provide stratospheric aerosol optical properties for climate models which cannot simulate stratospheric aerosols interactively from precursor emissions. Here we present an upper-tropospheric and stratospheric volcanic sulfur emission inventory covering the period 1750 to 2023, made for phase 7 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP7). CMIP7 stratospheric aerosol optical properties, presented in a companion paper, are directly derived from this emission inventory for the 1750–1978 pre-satellite period. For the satellite era, the emission inventory is primarily derived from satellite observations. For the pre-satellite period, the inventory is derived from a bipolar ice-core dataset, which captures well eruptions injecting on the order of 10 Tg SO2 or more, complemented by a high-resolution Greenland ice-core and the geological record, which support the inclusion of eruptions injecting on the order of 0.1–1 Tg SO2. We use satellite-era eruptions and older eruptions confidently matched to sulfate deposition records in ice-cores to derive empirical relationships to attribute injection height from SO2 mass and injection latitude from polar deposition asymmetry when these parameters are missing. The final CMIP7 emission inventory includes 463 eruptive eruptions injecting a total of 428.2 Tg SO2 into the upper troposphere-stratosphere over 1750–2023, corresponding to a mean flux of 1.56 Tg SO2 yr-1. For the pre-satellite era, around 25 % of CMIP7 volcanic sulfur emissions originate from small-to-moderate magnitude eruptions, defined here as injecting ≤ 3 Tg SO2, which not captured in many available ice core arrays. Comparing the CMIP7 inventory with other inventories available for specific time periods, we highlight the large uncertainties characterizing volcanic emissions over the historical period. However, we show that CMIP7 is less biased in terms of the frequency-magnitude distribution of small-to-moderate magnitude eruptions which are largely underestimated in other pre-satellite era inventories. Although the long-term mean emissions associated with these eruptions is consistent with the satellite era in CMIP7, we show that their frequency-magnitude distribution likely remains biased with a lack of small-magnitude eruptions injecting on the order of 0.1 Tg SO2, and potentially too many moderate-magnitude eruptions injecting on the order of 1 Tg SO2. We discuss other key sources of uncertainties and directions for improvements for the dataset, including the addition of non-sulfur and non-volcanic stratospheric aerosol precursors, as well as needs for operationalizing the dataset production. To support consistent implementation of the dataset in stratospheric aerosol models, we also provide recommendations for the temporal, horizontal, and vertical distribution of emissions associated with each eruption.
- Preprint
(2710 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-546', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Apr 2026
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thomas Aubry, 30 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-546', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 May 2026
The paper by Aubrey et al., provides a welcome description of the volcanic sulfur injections used to underpin the CMIP7 Historical volcanic forcing datasets. It is comprehensive and clear for the most part, although there are some places that could use some further explanation which I have highlighted below by line or figure. Overall I recommend acceptance once the below issues are addressed.
Figure 2: It would be useful to specify which of the triangles are identified in which cores. Could you split up by NH, Tr, SH – so three lines of triangles that can be linked to the different hemisphere records?
Line 138 : Where does this equation come from?
Line 140: What is the error on height estimates roughly?
Line 149: Are volcanic emissions currently included in the tropospheric forcing? It should be possible to find this out so it would be good to specify if there are instances of double counting.
Line 176: Unclear what this means – what is “estimated at -50%” refering to?
Line 193-194: Is there a bias then in the period after 1900 that is based purely on Sigl 2015 and doesn’t have GISP2? Please clarify if this is an issue or not.
Line 197: is there any consideration for delay between eruption and deposition?
Line 207: Unclear here – what is the instead refering to? What was done in other cases or before?
Line 217: How robust is the assumption of constant accumulation rate at this site between seasons? How much does seasonal precipitation vary seasonally here?
Line 224: what about unattributed eruptions? What is the difference? Is the scaling different?
Lines 227-231: This is unclear what is meant. It needs to be clearer what was published in Feng paper, and what is different here. And what entails a re-assessment. And when the eruption data was a historical date v an ice core date, and the implications of that on the timing (e.g. see question about deposition timing above). These few sentences were very difficult to follow.
Line 250: I think it would be clearer if you instead went backwards in time and found the first point outside the fit.
Line 257: Maybe include a table of return rates for various VEI and how it compares to previous estimates (and include Brown et al. 2014; Rougier et al., 2016 as well as the Papale papers?).
Figure 3: It seems like the method to determine when underrecording starts is a bit flawed for the higher VEI values. Consider the VEI5 plot – there is a huge change in slope around 1600. The key thing to spot is the slope, not whether a single point falls outside the regression uncertainty. Similar with VEI6 the change in slope looks to occur around 0 BC. There have been multiple papers that address this (some cited above and in the paper) so could you use their techniques instead?
Line 280: Here the difference between eruption and deposition age is explicitly stated. What is used though? And is it assumed to be the same for all eruptions? What is the uncertainty on that offset and how is that taken into consideration?
Line 293: “no other VEI ≥ 5 eruption is a low confidence match” – not sure what is meant by this?
Figure 4: What are the two high confidence eruptions that fall outside the large uncertainty window? Can these be labelled and is there a reason why that could help us to understand when this prediction might not work well?
Line 421-422 – This is confusing how it works if there is a long lag between eruption date and deposition as above. Is that considered at all?
Lines 426- 429: This is confusing because the month is specified here, so why was it assumed a month if month was known?
Line 478: Is mean justified? Normally distributed? What is the range, standard deviation?
Line 527: A discussion of why the petrological estimates are so far off of the ice core estimates is warranted.
Line 537: the numbers seem the wrong way around as tephra volume is high then low whereas sulfur load is low then high
Line 545- 550 : It would be useful to specify how they got their S estimates given the large discrepancy between the totals.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-546-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Aubry, 30 Jul 2026
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-546/egusphere-2026-546-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thomas Aubry, 30 Jul 2026
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2,029 | 1,044 | 122 | 3,195 | 242 | 288 |
- HTML: 2,029
- PDF: 1,044
- XML: 122
- Total: 3,195
- BibTeX: 242
- EndNote: 288
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Aubry et al. present an updated dataset for stratospheric and upper tropospheric volcanic eruptions for CMIP7 simulations. Using a combination of satellite observations, ice core sulfate from Greenland and Antarctica, and geological evidence from the Global Volcanism Program, they have created a dataset of SO2 eruption mass, injection height, date, lat/lon, and vent altitude from past large volcanic eruptions that seems as close to comprehensive as possible with the available data. Despite their best efforts, small- to moderate-magnitude eruptions are likely underrepresented before the satellite era, which will result in biases in RF estimates in CMIP7 models. I’m not sure that this could be improved upon without implementing assumed volcanic eruptions based on the satellite record.
Overall, I was impressed by the authors’ meticulous attention to detail in creating this dataset. I have only minor comments, suggestions, and questions for the authors below.
Minor comments: