4.8 Article

Disproportionately strong climate forcing from extratropical explosive volcanic eruptions

期刊

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 100-+

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/s41561-018-0286-2

关键词

-

资金

  1. Federal Ministry for Education and Research in Germany (BMBF) [FKZ:01LP130B, 01LP1130A, 01LP1517B]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [TO 967/1-1]
  3. NFR project VIKINGS [275191]
  4. European Union project StratoClim (FP7-ENV.2013.6.1-2)
  5. US National Science Foundation
  6. Swiss Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Extratropical volcanic eruptions are commonly thought to be less effective at driving large-scale surface cooling than tropical eruptions. However, recent minor extratropical eruptions have produced a measurable climate impact, and proxy records suggest that the most extreme Northern Hemisphere cold period of the Common Era was initiated by an extratropical eruption in 536 CE. Using ice-core-derived volcanic stratospheric sulfur injections and Northern Hemisphere summer temperature reconstructions from tree rings, we show here that in proportion to their estimated stratospheric sulfur injection, extratropical explosive eruptions since 750 CE have produced stronger hemispheric cooling than tropical eruptions. Stratospheric aerosol simulations demonstrate that for eruptions with a sulfur injection magnitude and height equal to that of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption, extratropical eruptions produce time-integrated radiative forcing anomalies over the Northern Hemisphere extratropics up to 80% greater than tropical eruptions, as decreases in aerosol lifetime are overwhelmed by the enhanced radiative impact associated with the relative confinement of aerosol to a single hemisphere. The model results are consistent with the temperature reconstructions, and elucidate how the radiative forcing produced by extratropical eruptions is strongly dependent on the eruption season and sulfur injection height within the stratosphere.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据