A perturbed parameter model ensemble to investigate Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 initial sulfur mass emission

Sheng, J.-X.; Weisenstein, D. K.; Luo, B.-P.; Rozanov, E.; Arfeuille, F.; Peter, T.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11501-2015

Articles | Volume 15, issue 20

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11501–11512, 2015

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11501-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 11501–11512, 2015

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-15-11501-2015

© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 20

Research article 19 Oct 2015

Research article | 19 Oct 2015

A perturbed parameter model ensemble to investigate Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 initial sulfur mass emission

J.-X. Sheng et al.

Download

Final revised paper (published on 19 Oct 2015)
Preprint (discussion started on 18 Feb 2015)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C552: 'Review of Sheng et al. ACPD 2015', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Mar 2015
- AC C3800: 'Reply to Referee #1', J.X. Sheng, 18 Jun 2015
RC C825: 'Too special', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Mar 2015
- AC C3801: 'Reply to Referee #2', J.X. Sheng, 18 Jun 2015
AC C3802: 'Tracked changes', J.X. Sheng, 18 Jun 2015

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Jianxiong Sheng on behalf of the Authors (18 Jun 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (22 Jun 2015) by Holger Tost

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (22 Jun 2015)

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (06 Jul 2015)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

\section{General comments}
The paper has improved a lot concerning clarity, for example by inclusion of equations for the
scoring, expansion of the table and more details in its interpretation. However, there is
still the issue, that SAGE data in a period with gap filling (Jan 92 - Mar 92 or even Sep 92)
get a too large weight for scoring. Use at least HIRS for that period and recalculate the
corresponding columns in Table 1. There is also the issue of large SO$_2$ differences to
observations in the middle and upper stratosphere pointing to problems with the photolysis of
H$_2$SO$_4$ and/or the evaporation of sulfate aerosol (see figure in the contribution to the
discussion, surprisingly Fig. 2 does not look so bad). The 'short' lifetime of SO$_2$ and some
OH uncertainties are no proper argument to downgrade the comparison with MLS. For other
volcanoes MIPAS SO$_2$ data show that a comparison is still useful 3 to 4 months after an
eruption. An additional column in Table 1 with a different weighting scheme would be useful to
assess uncertainties.

\section{Specific comments}
Section 3.1, ScoreBurden: Jan 1992 is too early for switching from HIRS to SAGE, see Arfeuille
et al., 2013 and Figure 6.
Section 3.1, ScoreExt: Use of SAGE above 18km from Jan 92 on might be OK, but not for the
lowermost stratosphere.
Section 3.3: Please include at least one sentence on R091.
Section 3.6, paragraph 2 and Fig.5: Here is an example for a model artifact which is now
addressed in the text. Accumulating too much aerosol above about 23km due to a bad
sedimentation scheme has also the side effect that less SO$_2$ is needed for same aerosol
burden. Is the problem only the sedimentation scheme or is there also a problem with evaporation as
indicated by the comparisons with the observations by Rinsland?
Section 3.6, paragraph 3: Text confusing, give $\sigma$ for R19 too.
Conclusions: Text on altitudes inconsistent with Table 1.

\section{Technical corrections}
Fig. 6: Improve quality, hatching is often not clearly seen. It would be also better to
indicate the years at the time axis.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (07 Jul 2015) by Holger Tost

AR by Jianxiong Sheng on behalf of the Authors (13 Aug 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (13 Aug 2015) by Holger Tost

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (25 Aug 2015)

ED: Reconsider after minor revisions (Editor review) (26 Aug 2015) by Holger Tost

AR by Jianxiong Sheng on behalf of the Authors (28 Sep 2015) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (30 Sep 2015) by Holger Tost

Short summary

We have conducted a perturbed parameter model ensemble to investigate Mt. Pinatubo's 1991 initial sulfur mass emission. Our results suggest that (a) the initial mass loading of the Pinatubo eruption is ~14 Mt of SO2; (b) the injection vertical distribution is strongly skewed towards the lower stratosphere, leading to a peak mass sulfur injection at 18-21 km; (c) the injection magnitude and height affect early southward transport of the volcanic cloud observed by SAGE II.