4.7 Article

Modeling the stratospheric warming following the Mt. Pinatubo eruption: uncertainties in aerosol extinctions

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 13, 期 22, 页码 11221-11234

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-13-11221-2013

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cogito foundation
  2. Department of Environmental Science of ETH Zurich

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In terms of atmospheric impact, the volcanic eruption of Mt. Pinatubo (1991) is the best characterized large eruption on record. We investigate here the model-derived stratospheric warming following the Pinatubo eruption as derived from SAGE II extinction data including recent improvements in the processing algorithm. This method, termed SAGE_ 4 lambda, makes use of the four wavelengths (385, 452, 525 and 1024 nm) of the SAGE II data when available, and uses a data- filling procedure in the opacity- induced gap regions. Using SAGE II we derived aerosol size distributions that properly reproduce extinction coefficients also at much longer wavelengths. This provides a good basis for calculating the absorption of terrestrial infrared radiation and the resulting stratospheric heating. However, we also show that the use of this data set in a global chemistry- climate model (CCM) still leads to stronger aerosol- induced stratospheric heating than observed, with temperatures partly even higher than the already too high values found by many models in recent general circulation model (GCM) and CCM intercomparisons. This suggests that the overestimation of the stratospheric warming after the Pinatubo eruption may not be ascribed to an insufficient observational database but instead to using outdated data sets, to deficiencies in the implementation of the forcing data, or to radiative or dynamical model artifacts. Conversely, the SAGE_4 lambda approach reduces the infrared absorption in the tropical tropopause region, result- ing in a significantly better agreement with the post- volcanic temperature record at these altitudes.

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

4.7
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