the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 21 Mar 2022
How volcanic eruption latitudes diversify surface climate responses
Abstract. This study analyzes the influence of tropical, northern, and southern volcanic eruptions on the surface climate, focusing on the role of El Niño–Southern Oscillation and stratospheric polar vortex, using large-ensemble simulations of the Community Earth System Model Last Millennium Ensemble. Typically, volcanic eruptions at different latitudes induce El Niño-like sea surface temperature anomalies over the equatorial eastern Pacific. However, the temporal variations and intensities differ. Such El Niño-like responses tend to amplify summer monsoon drying, which is stronger when followed by tropical eruptions than after northern and southern eruptions. Additionally, volcanic eruptions generate a stronger stratospheric polar vortex of varying magnitudes in both hemispheres. The strengthened Arctic polar vortex that occurs after tropical and southern eruptions, accompanies a positive Arctic Oscillation response in boreal winter. This induces warmer and wetter surface conditions over northern Eurasia relative to the conditions before the eruptions. However, the Arctic polar vortex and associated surface responses are only weakly influenced by northern eruptions. This is consistent with the more poleward spread of volcanic aerosols and the reduced equatorward extension of planetary wave propagation in the lower stratosphere. These results suggest that volcanic eruptions modulate surface climate by warming the sea surface temperature over the equatorial eastern Pacific and strengthening the stratospheric polar vortex but with diverse patterns depending on eruption latitudes.
- Preprint
(2729 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(826 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-187', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Mar 2022
I recommend major revisions for this paper. It ignores some relevant research work on this topic, which needs to be addressed. And fundamentally, I don’t see what is really new here. We already know, as can be seen in the many previous papers referenced here, that volcanic eruptions can affect ENSO and the polar vortex. What does using one imperfect climate model, and analyzing the results in detail teach us? Shouldn’t the study compare multiple climate models? In any case, the analysis needs to be redone, considering the points below.
The climate model has not been evaluated for its ability to simulate observed El Niños, and its Arctic Oscillation climate. How well does CESM simulate El Niño? This has to be tested and documented before we can trust its El Niño response to volcanic eruptions. How well does it do this for the recent observational period?
The southern and tropical set of volcanic eruptions seem to produce the same forcing of the climate system. Are they really distinct, and why are they not considered together? The aerosol distribution (Fig. 1g) looks very much like the tropical one (Fig. 1a) with the largest loading in the Tropics. How can you justify considering these eruptions separate from tropical ones? Also the Fig. 6 results for southern and tropical eruptions are the same. They really should be combined in the analysis.
The figures need to be revised, removing the bogus horizontal lines and putting black dots on the insignificant results, not the ones that are significant, so we can actually see them.
The pdf you provided has a very small font and the text and figures only cover part of each page. I find this annoying. I advise you in the future to make it easy for reviewers – not hard.
You have ignored the work of Coupe and Robock (2021), who found that in general the CESM Large Ensemble did not correctly simulate the El Niño or the winter warming after the three most recent large tropical eruptions, but did correctly simulate the winter warming if SSTs were specified. You have to reconcile your results with these.
Coupe, Joshua, and Alan Robock, 2021: The influence of stratospheric soot and sulfate aerosols on the Northern Hemisphere wintertime atmospheric circulation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 126, e2020JD034513, doi:10.1029/2020JD034513.
The paper continually refers to northern eruptions and southern eruptions, but does not define them until lines 97-99. The definition needs to be given the first time these phrases are used. If they are eruptions that occur in high latitudes in the respective hemispheres, above what latitude? And would the 1982 El Chichón eruption be a northern one, since the aerosols stayed in the Northern Hemisphere?
Figs. 3a and 3b have blue contour lines that are not explained in the caption. What are they?
Section 3.2.1 goes into detail about ocean circulation changes, but never explains why the El Niño after the volcanic eruptions is delayed for a year, in contrast to observations after 1963 Agung, 1982 El Chichón, and 1991 Pinatubo. If the model is wrong about this, how are we supposed to accept the results of the paper?
The figures are drawn with GrADS, but many have horizontal lines that should not be there. You need to remove all of them from the figures, and this can be done in several ways. Check the GrADS forum for the solutions.
I don’t understand why 10 mb is chosen for analysis of stratospheric wind anomalies. This is typically 26 km, much too high to be of significance for tropospheric influence. I know this model has a peak response there, but is it correct?
Polvani et al. (2019) claim that even an eruption the size of 1991 Pinatubo was not large enough to produce a significant change in the AO. How do you reconcile your results with theirs, considering you used the same climate model?
Polvani, L. M., Banerjee, A., & Schmidt, A. (2019). Northern Hemisphere continental winter warming following the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption: Reconciling models and observations. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19, 6351–6366. https://doi.org/10.5194/ acp-19-6351-2019
In addition, the 23 comments in the attached annotated manuscript need to be addressed.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Seung-Ki Min, 07 Apr 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-187/acp-2022-187-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2022
Dear Editor,
Based on this reply, please change my recommendation to Reject. Rather than agreeing to make Major Revisions, the authors just provide reasons to justify not making revisions. I do not accept the argument that multiple ensemble members make up for any model biases and obviate comparisons to other model results. If this is their response, then the paper will never be acceptable for publication. They will not look at other models. There is nothing really new here, repeating their previous work, and the paper has inconclusive results. The paper really adds nothing to our understanding of how the climate system works, but just reports on how one climate model responded.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-187-RC3
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Seung-Ki Min, 07 Apr 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2022-187', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Apr 2022
Review of “How volcanic eruption latitudes diversify surface climate responses “ by Paik, Min, Son, Soon-Il An, Kug, and Yeh
The work by Paik et al. studies the volcanic imprint on surface climate in the CESM Last Millennium ensemble (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2016) dependent on the latitude of eruption. A topic, which has been addressed by several authors before .This particular study concentrates on the influence of tropical, northern, and southern volcanic eruptions on the surface climate, specifically on the role of El Niño–Southern Oscillation, monsoonal precipitation and the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric winter climate. The results suggest that volcanic eruptions modulate surface climate by warming the sea surface temperature over the equatorial eastern Pacific and strengthening the stratospheric polar vortex but with diverse patterns depending on eruption latitudes. El Niño-like responses tend for example to amplify summer monsoon drying, which is stronger after tropical eruptions compares to northern and southern ones. After tropical and southern eruptions a strengthened Arctic polar vortex is found that, is accompanied a positive Arctic Oscillation response in boreal winter, while northern eruptions only weekly influence the Arctic polar vortex and associated surface responses .
I recommend major revisions as I have a couple of major concerns:General comments:
The CESM Last Millennium ensemble has been widely studies with respect to volcanic eruption of different season and latitudes (e.g. Stevenson et al., 2016; Zuo et al., 2018, 219a;b,;2021). In particular, the work on the volcanic impact on tropical hydro climate is therefore repetitive. Zuo et al. published four papers on this topic in the last four years using the same model simulations and the same volcano classification. While the authors cite the 1st three papers of Zuo and co-workers, a citation of the recent work by Zuo et al. (2021) on the dependence of global monsoon response to volcanic eruptions on the background oceanic states is missing. This is in particular important as the current paper has a complete session 3.2 on it.
Hence, I ask myself with respect to tropical hyroclimate what do we learn from this study what we did not know beforehand. Are there are any new insights? I miss a thorough and careful comparison of your results with respect to Zuo et al in the discussion section. In addition, there are also many other papers on the hydro climate impact of volcanic eruptions dependent on their latitude (e.g. Liu et al, 2016; 2018; Zhuo et al. 2021; Pausata et al., 2015. At the end of the paper in the discussion session, it would be also important to discuss how your results fit into the broader picture. Is this consistent or are there differences/uncertainties, which we need to understand and address further
The aim and the purpose of this paper is not really clear to me. I would like to see a much better motivation of the current study, e.g. what is your driving question? I recommend to narrow down the subject of the study and to focus on one or two specific questions e.g. the impact of the eruption of latitude on the NH winter response. Maybe it would make sense to distinguish even a bit further between the latitude of the eruptions. NH hemisphere eruptions could lead to very different forcing pattern see for example Toohey et al. (2019, their supplementary Figure 3). Hence, their impact on atmospheric circulation and surface climate could be quite different.
I have difficulties with the criteria for the classification of tropical northern and southern eruptions. This selection criterion, which was introduced by Samantha Stevenson in her study in 2016, is related to the atmospheric aerosol load and mostly used in the context of the CESM Last Millennium ensemble.
Looking to Figure S1, one can clearly see that the pattern of the southern eruption is quite similar to the tropical one while the pattern of the northern eruptions looks quite differently. The peak aerosol mass of the southern eruption is still located in the inner tropics and close to the equator. This also explain why southern and tropical eruption have a similar influence on the NH winter hemisphere in the CESM Millennium runs. The term “southern” is t quite misleading here in particular if one compare the response to other studies, which make a clear separation between tropical and extratropical eruption e.g. Zhuo et al. (2021). This might also explain some of the literature difference with respect to the ENSO response.
I recommend to revise/reevaluate the applied classification criteria. Does it really makes sense for your study or would another criteria e.g. tropical and extratropical eruption much more appropriate? If there are statistically not enough southern hemisphere extratropical eruptions one can either focus on tropical and NH extra tropical only or use a multi-model approach by including PMIP3 or PMIP4 simulations.Specific comments:
Introduction: Some recent literature is missing:
• Tropical hydroclimate e.g. Zuo et al., (2021); Zhuo et al. (2021); Predybalo et al (2020), Ward et al (2021)
• NH winter response: Zambri et al. (2017), Dalla Santa et al (2021) and references therein, Coupe and Robock (2021)
Page 14, line 295 ff: The paragraph about the Laki eruption has to be revised. The spatial distribution looks completely weird, see for comparison Zambri et al (2019). Laki is an Icelandic fissure eruption, which erupted on 8 June 1783 and lasted for 8 months. It is located at 64 N so it could be easily included in the polar vortex. It might be that not only the timing but also the spatial distribution of the Laki eruption is wrong in the CESM Millennium ensemble. Please check this carefully and adapt your interpretation.
Page 10- 12: How consistent are your results with Zuo et al. (2021) in particular Figure 5 with their Figure 8?
Page 19, line 391-391: “First study” is not correct in particular with respect to the ENSO response, see general comment above . So please revise this accordingly
Page 20, line 406: the southern eruptions considered here are not high latitude eruptions
Page 20, line 421: Your classification is too coarse to really have an important impact for the volcanic impact on decadal predications. Looking to the different spatial distribution for NH mid and high latitude extratropical eruptions, see e.g. Toohey et al. (2019), you will expect quite different surface climate responses although both would be quantified in your classification as northern.
Table 1: Please refer here to the original table by Stevenson et al. (2016).
Figure 1: The surface temperature plots are not readable at all.
Figure 3: Why are there are significant dots in the years prior to the eruptions in panel c) and e).
Figure 8: The panels a) and c) look quite similar, are they are the same? What does the black dots show in panels b) and d)? I also do not completely understand if you have values only at four levels, then the distinct maximum between 10 and 200 hPa would not make sense.
References:
Coupe, J., and Robock, A., 20121 : The influence of stratospheric soot and sulfate aerosols on the Northern Hemisphere wintertime atmospheric circulation. J. Gephys. Res., 126, e2020JD034513, doi:10.1029/ 2020JD034513.
DallaSanta, K. and Polvani, L. M., 2022: Volcanic stratospheric injections up to 160 Tg(S) yield a Eurasian winter warming indistinguishable from internal variability, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-58, in review,.
Liu, F., Chai, J., Wang, B., Liu, J., Zhang, X., and Wang, Z, 2016.: Global monsoon precipitation responses to large volcanic eruptions, SCI. REP.-UK., 6, 24331, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24331.
Liu, F., Li, J., Wang, B., Liu, J., Li, T., Huang, G., and Wang, Z., 2018.: Divergent El Niño responses to volcanic eruptions at different latitudes over the past millennium, Clim. Dynam., 50, 3799–3812, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3846-z.
Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Brady, E. C., Fasullo, J., Jahn, A., Landrum, L., Stevenson, S., Rosenbloom, N., Mai, A., and Strand, G., 2016: Climate variability and change since 850 CE: An ensemble approach with the Community Earth System Model, B.500, Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97, 735–754, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00233.1.
Pausata, F. S. R., Chafik, L., Caballero, R., and Battisti, D. S., 2015: Impacts of high-latitude volcanic eruptions on ENSO and AMOC, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 13784–13788, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509153112, 2015.
Predybaylo, E., Stenchikov, G., Wittenberg, A. T., and Osipov, S.,2020: El Niño/Southern Oscillation response to low-latitude volcanic eruptions depends on ocean pre-conditions and eruption timing, Commun. Earth Environ., 1, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-0013-y.
Stevenson, S., Otto-Bliesner, B., Fasullo, J., and Brady, E , 2016.: “El Niño like” hydroclimate responses to last millennium volcanic eruptions, J. Climate, 29, 2907–2921, https:doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0239.1.
Toohey, M., Krüger, K., Schmidt, H., Timmreck, C., Sigl, M., Stoffel, M. and Wilson, R. 2019: Disproportionately strong climate forcing from extratropical explosive volcanic eruptions. Nature Geoscience, 12, 100-107. doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0286-2
Ward, B., Pausata, F. S. R., and Maher, N.: The sensitivity of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation to volcanic aerosol spatial distribution in the MPI Grand Ensemble, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 975–996, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-975-2021, 2021.
Zambri, B. Robock, A. Mills, M. and Schmidt, A 2019: Modeling the 1783–1784 Laki Eruption in Iceland: 1. Aerosol Evolution and Global Stratospheric Circulation Impact, J . Geophys. Res. Atmos , https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029553
Zambri B., LeGrande, A. N., Robock ,A., and J. Slawinska, J. 2017: Northern Hemisphere winter warming and summer monsoon reduction after volcanic eruptions over the last millennium ,J . Geophys. Res. Atmos.,122, 7971–7989,doi:10.1002/2017JD026728.
Zhuo, Z., Kirchner, I., Pfahl, S., and Cubasch, U.,2021: Climate impact of volcanic eruptions: the sensitivity to eruption season and latitude in MPI-ESM ensemble experiments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 13425–13442, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-13425-2021.
Zuo, M., W. Man, T. Zhou, and Z. Guo, 2018: Different impacts of northern, tropical, and southern volcanic eruptions on the tropical pacific sst in the last millennium. J. Climate, 31, 6729-6744, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0571.1.
Zuo, M., T. Zhou, and W. Man, 2019a: Hydroclimate responses over global monsoon regions following volcanic eruptions at different latitudes. J. Climate, 32, 4367-4385, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0707.1.
——, 2019b: Wetter global arid regions driven by volcanic eruptions. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 124, 13648-13662, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031171.
Zuo, M., W. Man, and T. Zhou, 2021: Dependence of global monsoon response to volcanic eruptions on the background oceanic states, Journal of Climate pp 1, 1520-0442. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0891.1Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-187-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Seung-Ki Min, 01 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-187/acp-2022-187-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Seung-Ki Min, 01 May 2022
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-187', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Mar 2022
I recommend major revisions for this paper. It ignores some relevant research work on this topic, which needs to be addressed. And fundamentally, I don’t see what is really new here. We already know, as can be seen in the many previous papers referenced here, that volcanic eruptions can affect ENSO and the polar vortex. What does using one imperfect climate model, and analyzing the results in detail teach us? Shouldn’t the study compare multiple climate models? In any case, the analysis needs to be redone, considering the points below.
The climate model has not been evaluated for its ability to simulate observed El Niños, and its Arctic Oscillation climate. How well does CESM simulate El Niño? This has to be tested and documented before we can trust its El Niño response to volcanic eruptions. How well does it do this for the recent observational period?
The southern and tropical set of volcanic eruptions seem to produce the same forcing of the climate system. Are they really distinct, and why are they not considered together? The aerosol distribution (Fig. 1g) looks very much like the tropical one (Fig. 1a) with the largest loading in the Tropics. How can you justify considering these eruptions separate from tropical ones? Also the Fig. 6 results for southern and tropical eruptions are the same. They really should be combined in the analysis.
The figures need to be revised, removing the bogus horizontal lines and putting black dots on the insignificant results, not the ones that are significant, so we can actually see them.
The pdf you provided has a very small font and the text and figures only cover part of each page. I find this annoying. I advise you in the future to make it easy for reviewers – not hard.
You have ignored the work of Coupe and Robock (2021), who found that in general the CESM Large Ensemble did not correctly simulate the El Niño or the winter warming after the three most recent large tropical eruptions, but did correctly simulate the winter warming if SSTs were specified. You have to reconcile your results with these.
Coupe, Joshua, and Alan Robock, 2021: The influence of stratospheric soot and sulfate aerosols on the Northern Hemisphere wintertime atmospheric circulation. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 126, e2020JD034513, doi:10.1029/2020JD034513.
The paper continually refers to northern eruptions and southern eruptions, but does not define them until lines 97-99. The definition needs to be given the first time these phrases are used. If they are eruptions that occur in high latitudes in the respective hemispheres, above what latitude? And would the 1982 El Chichón eruption be a northern one, since the aerosols stayed in the Northern Hemisphere?
Figs. 3a and 3b have blue contour lines that are not explained in the caption. What are they?
Section 3.2.1 goes into detail about ocean circulation changes, but never explains why the El Niño after the volcanic eruptions is delayed for a year, in contrast to observations after 1963 Agung, 1982 El Chichón, and 1991 Pinatubo. If the model is wrong about this, how are we supposed to accept the results of the paper?
The figures are drawn with GrADS, but many have horizontal lines that should not be there. You need to remove all of them from the figures, and this can be done in several ways. Check the GrADS forum for the solutions.
I don’t understand why 10 mb is chosen for analysis of stratospheric wind anomalies. This is typically 26 km, much too high to be of significance for tropospheric influence. I know this model has a peak response there, but is it correct?
Polvani et al. (2019) claim that even an eruption the size of 1991 Pinatubo was not large enough to produce a significant change in the AO. How do you reconcile your results with theirs, considering you used the same climate model?
Polvani, L. M., Banerjee, A., & Schmidt, A. (2019). Northern Hemisphere continental winter warming following the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption: Reconciling models and observations. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19, 6351–6366. https://doi.org/10.5194/ acp-19-6351-2019
In addition, the 23 comments in the attached annotated manuscript need to be addressed.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Seung-Ki Min, 07 Apr 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-187/acp-2022-187-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC3: 'Reply on RC1', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Apr 2022
Dear Editor,
Based on this reply, please change my recommendation to Reject. Rather than agreeing to make Major Revisions, the authors just provide reasons to justify not making revisions. I do not accept the argument that multiple ensemble members make up for any model biases and obviate comparisons to other model results. If this is their response, then the paper will never be acceptable for publication. They will not look at other models. There is nothing really new here, repeating their previous work, and the paper has inconclusive results. The paper really adds nothing to our understanding of how the climate system works, but just reports on how one climate model responded.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-187-RC3
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Seung-Ki Min, 07 Apr 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on acp-2022-187', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Apr 2022
Review of “How volcanic eruption latitudes diversify surface climate responses “ by Paik, Min, Son, Soon-Il An, Kug, and Yeh
The work by Paik et al. studies the volcanic imprint on surface climate in the CESM Last Millennium ensemble (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2016) dependent on the latitude of eruption. A topic, which has been addressed by several authors before .This particular study concentrates on the influence of tropical, northern, and southern volcanic eruptions on the surface climate, specifically on the role of El Niño–Southern Oscillation, monsoonal precipitation and the Northern Hemisphere stratospheric winter climate. The results suggest that volcanic eruptions modulate surface climate by warming the sea surface temperature over the equatorial eastern Pacific and strengthening the stratospheric polar vortex but with diverse patterns depending on eruption latitudes. El Niño-like responses tend for example to amplify summer monsoon drying, which is stronger after tropical eruptions compares to northern and southern ones. After tropical and southern eruptions a strengthened Arctic polar vortex is found that, is accompanied a positive Arctic Oscillation response in boreal winter, while northern eruptions only weekly influence the Arctic polar vortex and associated surface responses .
I recommend major revisions as I have a couple of major concerns:General comments:
The CESM Last Millennium ensemble has been widely studies with respect to volcanic eruption of different season and latitudes (e.g. Stevenson et al., 2016; Zuo et al., 2018, 219a;b,;2021). In particular, the work on the volcanic impact on tropical hydro climate is therefore repetitive. Zuo et al. published four papers on this topic in the last four years using the same model simulations and the same volcano classification. While the authors cite the 1st three papers of Zuo and co-workers, a citation of the recent work by Zuo et al. (2021) on the dependence of global monsoon response to volcanic eruptions on the background oceanic states is missing. This is in particular important as the current paper has a complete session 3.2 on it.
Hence, I ask myself with respect to tropical hyroclimate what do we learn from this study what we did not know beforehand. Are there are any new insights? I miss a thorough and careful comparison of your results with respect to Zuo et al in the discussion section. In addition, there are also many other papers on the hydro climate impact of volcanic eruptions dependent on their latitude (e.g. Liu et al, 2016; 2018; Zhuo et al. 2021; Pausata et al., 2015. At the end of the paper in the discussion session, it would be also important to discuss how your results fit into the broader picture. Is this consistent or are there differences/uncertainties, which we need to understand and address further
The aim and the purpose of this paper is not really clear to me. I would like to see a much better motivation of the current study, e.g. what is your driving question? I recommend to narrow down the subject of the study and to focus on one or two specific questions e.g. the impact of the eruption of latitude on the NH winter response. Maybe it would make sense to distinguish even a bit further between the latitude of the eruptions. NH hemisphere eruptions could lead to very different forcing pattern see for example Toohey et al. (2019, their supplementary Figure 3). Hence, their impact on atmospheric circulation and surface climate could be quite different.
I have difficulties with the criteria for the classification of tropical northern and southern eruptions. This selection criterion, which was introduced by Samantha Stevenson in her study in 2016, is related to the atmospheric aerosol load and mostly used in the context of the CESM Last Millennium ensemble.
Looking to Figure S1, one can clearly see that the pattern of the southern eruption is quite similar to the tropical one while the pattern of the northern eruptions looks quite differently. The peak aerosol mass of the southern eruption is still located in the inner tropics and close to the equator. This also explain why southern and tropical eruption have a similar influence on the NH winter hemisphere in the CESM Millennium runs. The term “southern” is t quite misleading here in particular if one compare the response to other studies, which make a clear separation between tropical and extratropical eruption e.g. Zhuo et al. (2021). This might also explain some of the literature difference with respect to the ENSO response.
I recommend to revise/reevaluate the applied classification criteria. Does it really makes sense for your study or would another criteria e.g. tropical and extratropical eruption much more appropriate? If there are statistically not enough southern hemisphere extratropical eruptions one can either focus on tropical and NH extra tropical only or use a multi-model approach by including PMIP3 or PMIP4 simulations.Specific comments:
Introduction: Some recent literature is missing:
• Tropical hydroclimate e.g. Zuo et al., (2021); Zhuo et al. (2021); Predybalo et al (2020), Ward et al (2021)
• NH winter response: Zambri et al. (2017), Dalla Santa et al (2021) and references therein, Coupe and Robock (2021)
Page 14, line 295 ff: The paragraph about the Laki eruption has to be revised. The spatial distribution looks completely weird, see for comparison Zambri et al (2019). Laki is an Icelandic fissure eruption, which erupted on 8 June 1783 and lasted for 8 months. It is located at 64 N so it could be easily included in the polar vortex. It might be that not only the timing but also the spatial distribution of the Laki eruption is wrong in the CESM Millennium ensemble. Please check this carefully and adapt your interpretation.
Page 10- 12: How consistent are your results with Zuo et al. (2021) in particular Figure 5 with their Figure 8?
Page 19, line 391-391: “First study” is not correct in particular with respect to the ENSO response, see general comment above . So please revise this accordingly
Page 20, line 406: the southern eruptions considered here are not high latitude eruptions
Page 20, line 421: Your classification is too coarse to really have an important impact for the volcanic impact on decadal predications. Looking to the different spatial distribution for NH mid and high latitude extratropical eruptions, see e.g. Toohey et al. (2019), you will expect quite different surface climate responses although both would be quantified in your classification as northern.
Table 1: Please refer here to the original table by Stevenson et al. (2016).
Figure 1: The surface temperature plots are not readable at all.
Figure 3: Why are there are significant dots in the years prior to the eruptions in panel c) and e).
Figure 8: The panels a) and c) look quite similar, are they are the same? What does the black dots show in panels b) and d)? I also do not completely understand if you have values only at four levels, then the distinct maximum between 10 and 200 hPa would not make sense.
References:
Coupe, J., and Robock, A., 20121 : The influence of stratospheric soot and sulfate aerosols on the Northern Hemisphere wintertime atmospheric circulation. J. Gephys. Res., 126, e2020JD034513, doi:10.1029/ 2020JD034513.
DallaSanta, K. and Polvani, L. M., 2022: Volcanic stratospheric injections up to 160 Tg(S) yield a Eurasian winter warming indistinguishable from internal variability, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-58, in review,.
Liu, F., Chai, J., Wang, B., Liu, J., Zhang, X., and Wang, Z, 2016.: Global monsoon precipitation responses to large volcanic eruptions, SCI. REP.-UK., 6, 24331, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep24331.
Liu, F., Li, J., Wang, B., Liu, J., Li, T., Huang, G., and Wang, Z., 2018.: Divergent El Niño responses to volcanic eruptions at different latitudes over the past millennium, Clim. Dynam., 50, 3799–3812, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3846-z.
Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Brady, E. C., Fasullo, J., Jahn, A., Landrum, L., Stevenson, S., Rosenbloom, N., Mai, A., and Strand, G., 2016: Climate variability and change since 850 CE: An ensemble approach with the Community Earth System Model, B.500, Am. Meteorol. Soc., 97, 735–754, https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00233.1.
Pausata, F. S. R., Chafik, L., Caballero, R., and Battisti, D. S., 2015: Impacts of high-latitude volcanic eruptions on ENSO and AMOC, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 112, 13784–13788, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1509153112, 2015.
Predybaylo, E., Stenchikov, G., Wittenberg, A. T., and Osipov, S.,2020: El Niño/Southern Oscillation response to low-latitude volcanic eruptions depends on ocean pre-conditions and eruption timing, Commun. Earth Environ., 1, 1–13, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-020-0013-y.
Stevenson, S., Otto-Bliesner, B., Fasullo, J., and Brady, E , 2016.: “El Niño like” hydroclimate responses to last millennium volcanic eruptions, J. Climate, 29, 2907–2921, https:doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0239.1.
Toohey, M., Krüger, K., Schmidt, H., Timmreck, C., Sigl, M., Stoffel, M. and Wilson, R. 2019: Disproportionately strong climate forcing from extratropical explosive volcanic eruptions. Nature Geoscience, 12, 100-107. doi:10.1038/s41561-018-0286-2
Ward, B., Pausata, F. S. R., and Maher, N.: The sensitivity of the El Niño–Southern Oscillation to volcanic aerosol spatial distribution in the MPI Grand Ensemble, Earth Syst. Dynam., 12, 975–996, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-12-975-2021, 2021.
Zambri, B. Robock, A. Mills, M. and Schmidt, A 2019: Modeling the 1783–1784 Laki Eruption in Iceland: 1. Aerosol Evolution and Global Stratospheric Circulation Impact, J . Geophys. Res. Atmos , https://doi.org/10.1029/2018JD029553
Zambri B., LeGrande, A. N., Robock ,A., and J. Slawinska, J. 2017: Northern Hemisphere winter warming and summer monsoon reduction after volcanic eruptions over the last millennium ,J . Geophys. Res. Atmos.,122, 7971–7989,doi:10.1002/2017JD026728.
Zhuo, Z., Kirchner, I., Pfahl, S., and Cubasch, U.,2021: Climate impact of volcanic eruptions: the sensitivity to eruption season and latitude in MPI-ESM ensemble experiments, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 13425–13442, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-13425-2021.
Zuo, M., W. Man, T. Zhou, and Z. Guo, 2018: Different impacts of northern, tropical, and southern volcanic eruptions on the tropical pacific sst in the last millennium. J. Climate, 31, 6729-6744, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-17-0571.1.
Zuo, M., T. Zhou, and W. Man, 2019a: Hydroclimate responses over global monsoon regions following volcanic eruptions at different latitudes. J. Climate, 32, 4367-4385, https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0707.1.
——, 2019b: Wetter global arid regions driven by volcanic eruptions. Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 124, 13648-13662, https://doi.org/10.1029/2019jd031171.
Zuo, M., W. Man, and T. Zhou, 2021: Dependence of global monsoon response to volcanic eruptions on the background oceanic states, Journal of Climate pp 1, 1520-0442. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-20-0891.1Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2022-187-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Seung-Ki Min, 01 May 2022
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2022-187/acp-2022-187-AC2-supplement.pdf
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Seung-Ki Min, 01 May 2022
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 794 | 281 | 51 | 1,126 | 88 | 34 | 51 |
- HTML: 794
- PDF: 281
- XML: 51
- Total: 1,126
- Supplement: 88
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 51
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
