Abstract
The January 2022 Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haâapai volcanic eruption injected a relatively small amount of sulfur dioxide, but significantly more water into the stratosphere than previously seen in the modern satellite record. Here we show that the large amount of water resulted in large perturbations to stratospheric aerosol evolution. Our climate model simulation reproduces the observed enhanced water vapor at pressure levels ~30âhPa for three months. Compared with a simulation without a water injection, this additional source of water vapor increases hydroxide, which halves the sulfur dioxide lifetime. Subsequent coagulation creates larger sulfate particles that double the stratospheric aerosol optical depth. A seasonal forecast of volcanic plume transport in the southern hemisphere indicates this eruption will greatly enhance the aerosol surface area and water vapor near the polar vortex until at least October 2022, suggesting that there will continue to be an impact of this eruption on the climate system.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
On January 13 and 15 of 2022, the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haâapai (HTHH) submarine volcano (21°S, 175°W) erupted and injected volcanic material into the stratosphere up to an altitude of 58âkm1,2,3. Observations from several satellites showed enhanced levels of stratospheric sulfur dioxide (SO2) (by the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument, TROPOMI and the Ozone Mapping and Profiling Suite Nadir-Mapper, OMPS-NM), water vapor (by the Microwave Limb Sounder, MLS), aerosols (by OMPS Limb Profiler, OMPS LP and Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization, CALIOP), and possibly ice (by CALIOP) as we will discuss in this work. Unlike some land-based volcanos, HTHH injected more than 100âTg of water into the stratosphere4,5, which normally contains about 1500âTg of water globally defined for a tropopause pressure of 100âhPa. The MLS onboard NASAâs Earth Observing System (EOS) Aura satellite6 observed enhanced water vapor that persisted for more than 3 months. The CALIOP on the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite7 observed two distinct aerosol types on January 16 after the eruption: one with weak 532ânm depolarization indicating spherical particles (such as sulfate aerosol) above 20âkm, and layers at lower altitudes with large depolarization indicating particles with nonspherical shapes (such as volcanic ash and ice) (Supplementary Fig. 1). It is typical to see ice and ash immediately after an eruption (i.e., ref. 8). However, it is surprising to see abundant sulfate aerosol with large extinction/backscatter coefficients so quickly because SO2 usually takes more time to be oxidized and for sulfuric acid (H2SO4) to nucleate into sulfate aerosol9.
Stratospheric water vapor and volcanic aerosols are important to both chemistry10,11,12,13,14,15 and radiative balance16,17,18,19. Here, we demonstrate that enhanced H2O promotes faster sulfate aerosol formation in the stratosphere leading to larger particles and larger aerosol optical depth. The water vapor injection and a small amount of evaporating ice deposits substantial water vapor in the stratosphere. Large water vapor abundances result in the formation of hydroxide (OH) which acts to speed up the conversion of SO2 to H2SO4. Because of the faster formation and coagulation of sulfate aerosol, particles form with larger sizes and hence larger extinction than the ones without water injection. Finally, we predict the water vapor and aerosols that get transported toward the South Pole will linger near the polar vortex until at least October 2022.
Results
Both water injection and evaporating ice determine the water vapor remaining in the stratosphere
Here we use the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM) to simulate the persistent water vapor enhancement from 10 to 50âhPa observed by MLS version 4 (Fig. 1a) from February to April. Zonal averages of simulated water vapor on March 1 shows good agreement with MLS observations (Supplementary Fig. 2). Figure 1a shows both the model (solid line) and MLS (dashed line) display a positive water vapor anomaly of 6â8âppmv peaking at 30âhPa from February to April. The anomaly is averaged from 30°S to 0° and calculated using February, March, and April profiles minus the profile on January 5. The simulation has wider vertical extent and slightly smaller peak anomalies in March and April. Both the model and MLS (Fig. 1a) show that the positive water vapor anomaly slowly ascends from February 10 to April 1, which is largely related to the ascending branch of Brewer-Dobson circulation20 (Supplementary Fig. 2b).
To be consistent with the MLS water anomalies5, we need to inject ~150âTg of water in an area of ~6âÃâ105âkm2, which is about three times larger than the anvil size observed by NOAAâs Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 17 on January 15, 2022. This large area is needed because the residual amount of water is determined by the ice vapor pressure curve as shown in Supplementary Fig. 3. If we inject the water into a smaller area, the model forms too much ice and cannot retain enough water at 30âhPa as observed. It is not unreasonable to inject in a larger area. MLS observations on Jan 16 (a day after the eruption) show the latitudinal spreading of water vapor anomaly is more than 10 degrees5. The simulated plume does not spread as fast as observed because it is hard for the global model to reproduce the vertical wind shear as observed due to the limited spatial resolution, especially for a tropical volcanic plume spreading in the first couple of days21. In the model, the injection is over 6âh on January 15, 2022 between 25.5 and 35âkm with a majority of the water injected between 25.5 and 30âkm (see Methods for details). The model simulation (Fig. 1b) shows that 10âTg of ice falls out and 10âTg of ice evaporates and contributes to the residual water vapor (~140âTg) until April. In actuality, it is possible that more H2O was injected and formed ice particles, but these ice particles may have fallen out because of their large size, or because they aggregated with ash particles8.
The water injection significantly shortens the SO2 lifetime by providing abundant OH
An accurate volcanic SO2 lifetime is key for predicting the particle sizes in the volcanic cloud. With shorter lifetimes, the resulting aerosol concentration is higher, leading to more rapid coagulation and larger sulfate particles22. In the stratosphere, the volcanic SO2 lifetime is mainly determined by its reaction rate with OH, as well as the heterogeneous reaction on ash21. The depletion of OH in SO2-rich plumes slows the SO2/OH reaction9,21,23,24,25. However, during the HTHH eruption, the notable amount of water vapor injected rapidly increased OH15 (Supplementary Fig. 4) and shortened the SO2 lifetime as shown in Fig. 2. The simulated SO2 (blue dash line) is within the observational error bars (i.e., uncertainty of 35% and 30%26 for OMPS-NM and TROPOMI SO2 mass estimates, respectively). Clegg and Abbatt27 demonstrated that SO2 uptake on the ice surfaces is insignificant, so this mechanism is not included in the model. The SO2 lifetime (the e-folding time) of the SO2only case (red line) is 28 days, while the SO2 lifetime of the SO2_H2O case (blue solid line) is 12 days. Previous study21 showed that a considerable amount of SO2 might be undetectable because it falls below the detection limits of the instruments as it spreads through the atmosphere. However, the blue dashed line in Fig. 2 suggests that this effect is small for this eruption for the first 10 days.
Enhanced water vapor impacts the stratospheric aerosol optical depth and radiation
We compare the stratospheric aerosol optical depth (sAOD) between OMPS-LP data and two model cases at near-infrared in Fig. 3, because the extinction coefficient retrieval near-infrared has the best accuracy among all the wavelength for the OMPS-LP instrument28. Here we present the SO2only and H2O_SO2 cases based on our best knowledge of the injection area and injection amount of SO2 and H2O. Additional model sensitivity tests with various injection amounts and latitude bands compared with several observational aerosol optical properties are detailed in Supplementary Note 1. Without the water injection, the SO2only case has a very small sAOD in the first 2 weeks after the eruption, because SO2 converts slowly to H2SO4 with a lifetime of ~1 month (Fig. 2). Both OMPS and the SO2_H2O case show almost immediate formation of a large amount of sulfate aerosol. OMPS LP sAOD retrieval during the first couple of days has large uncertainties when the volcanic clouds are optically thick and localized29. The backscatter coefficient at visible wavelengths for the SO2_H2O case and CALIOP shows a similar peak value of 0.005 to 0.01âkmâ1âsrâ1 (Supplementary Fig. 5). In addition, compared to the SO2only case, sulfate particles in the SO2_H2O case doubled the sAOD in February because sulfate forms faster in the SO2_H2O case, and the more abundant particles coagulate to larger sizes. Also, sulfate particles swell to be a little larger because of the enhanced background water vapor (Supplementary Fig. 8). Generally, OMPS-LP observes a faster spreading of the plume to the northern hemisphere than is simulated (Fig. 3) and has higher optic values in the northern hemisphere in March (Supplementary Fig. 9). Sellitto et al.30 indicate the initial fast spreading of the HTHH aerosol plume is highly related to the strong cooling inside the plume. Our model is nudged to the observed meteorology, which does not capture this strong local cooling. Also, as we discuss in Result, the global model cannot reproduce the vertical wind shear as observed due to the limited spatial resolution. On March 1, the SO2_H2O case and the OMPS observation are consistent regarding the vertical extent of the plume from 20 to 30âkm, and the extension to 40°S (Supplementary Fig. 9).
Because of the increase in the burden of sulfate, the volcanic plume creates a negative radiative effect of about â1 to â2âWâmâ2 in the perturbed areas in January and February (Fig. 4). The global mean radiative effect at the top of the atmosphere in February is â0.13âWâmâ2 in the SO2only case and â0.21âWâmâ2 in the SO2_H2O case; the surface radiative effect is â0.16âWâmâ2 for the SO2only case and â0.21âWâmâ2 for the SO2_H2O case. These values are typical for middle-sized volcanic eruptions31. Even though the sAOD is approximately doubled in the SO2_H2O case, it only results in slightly more negative radiative forcing due to enhanced positive radiative forcing of the enhanced water vapor32,33 in the SO2_H2O case. Additional simulation with only H2O injection shows the radiative effect from water is positive in the Southern hemisphere but is much smaller than that of the aerosol (Supplementary Fig. 10).
Persistent volcanic water vapor and sulfate may impact stratospheric ozone chemistry
Here we focus our study on the transport of volcanic water vapor and sulfate in the Southern Hemisphere. We conduct three sets of 3-member ensemble simulations to explore the transport of volcanic water vapor and volcanic sulfate from January to October. The simulations are nudged to the observed meteorology until the end of March and then are free-running until October. Figure 5 shows that both H2O and sulfur in the condensed phase are slowly transported to the south from January to May. After mid-June, the majority of H2O and sulfur in the condensed phase reside between 30°S and 60°S. This is because the strong Antarctic vortex during JuneâJulyâAugust prevents volcanic materials from entering the polar cap. The black contours in Fig. 5 are the zonal wind showing the polar vortex starts to build up in April and remains through October between 50°S and 60°S. Figure 5c, d shows the percentage increase compared to the background levels of H2O and sulfur in the condensed phase. Even though the majority of volcanic material is outside the polar vortex, we see a ~10% increase of sulfur in the condensed phase at 90°S starting from April and the mass of the sulfur in the condensed phase almost doubles in October. The sulfate aerosol provides extra surface area density (SAD) for heterogeneous reactions affecting ozone chemistry. On the other hand, water increases by about 20% at the edge of the vortex (~60°S) after June. However, due to polar stratospheric cloud formation and dehydration, the positive water anomaly inside the polar vortex does not pass the Studentâs t-test at a 90% significance level.
The simulations predict an increase in water vapor and aerosol surface area density (SAD) near the vortex. These changes are expected to impact polar ozone because heterogeneous reactions on polar stratospheric clouds and volcanic particles convert inactive chlorine (ClONO2 and HCl) into photochemically active chlorine34,35. Figure 6a, b shows that water increases by about 2â3âppmv and SAD increases by about 2 to 4.5âµm2âcmâ3 near the edge of the vortex by the end of September. The SAD increases by about 1.5âµm2âcmâ3 inside the vortex at 100âhPa. Water vapor increases between 50 and 10âhPa, while the aerosol increase is between 150 and 30âhPa. This difference in altitude occurs because of aerosol sedimentation during transport. Figure 6c shows the HCl+ClONO2 heterogeneous reaction rate36 as a function of temperature for different amounts of water vapor. The reaction probability increases about one order of magnitude as we increase water by 3âppmv above 194âK. Volcanic aerosols are well known to be a factor to impact ozone depletion by providing additional surface area and suppressing the NOx cycle37. The additional H2O changes in HTHH can impacting the dynamics, HOx chemical cycles, heterogeneous reaction rate, and the Polar Stratospheric Cloud formation (PSCs). The water vapor mixing ratio determines the vapor pressure of HNO3 in the supercooled ternary solutions (Type Ib PSC) and impacts the ice PSCâs nucleation and growth. Both the direct impact and climate response caused by this eruption add complications to ozone assessment. Therefore, future studies will be conducted to explain how the volcanic H2O and sulfate impact the 2022 Antarctic ozone depletion.
Discussion
The HTHH eruption provides a natural testbed to show how increased water vapor in the stratosphere can impact the Earth system. This work demonstrates the importance of the water vapor injection on aerosol and aerosol-related chemistry using a state-of-the-art global climate model. The simulation shows that water vapor significantly shortens the SO2 lifetime and doubles aerosol extinction relative to the simulation with only an SO2 injection. The global radiative forcing of HHTH is on the order of â0.1 to â0.2âWâmâ2 though it is about â1 to â2âWâmâ2 from 30°S to 0° during the 2 months after the eruption. In the forecast simulation, volcanic water and sulfate persist near the polar vortex until at least October 2022. The model developed here provides opportunities for future studies on the climate impact, and effects on ozone, of HTHH eruption as it continues to evolve.
Methods
Model setup
We utilize the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2) with the Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM)38 using 70 layers extending upward to 140âkm. The vertical resolution is about 1 to 1.5âkm in the stratosphere. The model is fully coupled to an interactive ocean, sea-ice, and land. The ocean and sea-ice are initialized on January 3 with output from a stand-alone ocean model forced by atmospheric state fields and fluxes from the Japanese 55-year Reanalysis39. Likewise, the land is initialized with output from a stand-alone land model forced with atmospheric data from the National Center for Environmental Prediction Climate Forecast System, version 2. These are the same initializations that were used in the subseasonal-to-seasonal project40. The atmosphere is initialized from a transient WACCM simulation38. Between January 3 and March 30, 2022, the atmospheric component is nudged to GEOS5 meteorological analysis41 with a 12-h relaxation using 3-h meteorology42. After April 1, three ensemble members with a fully interactive atmosphere and ocean are continued into the future until the end of October. The three ensemble members differ in the last date of nudging (namely March 29, 30, and 31). We conducted three sets of ensemble members: the control case without SO2 or H2O; the SO2only case with only SO2 injection; and the SO2_H2O case with both SO2 and H2O injection. We conduct a H2Oonly case with only H2O injection to investigate the radiative impact from H2O.
The SO2 injection amount is based on the TROPOMI and OMPS Nadir Mapper (NM) SO243 reported at https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/. We tune the SO2 injection vertical distributions based on comparisons between the simulated sulfate aerosol and OMPS LP aerosol extinction in March (i.e., Supplementary Fig. 9). We tune the H2O injection amount and vertical distribution mainly to retain enough H2O between 10 and 50âhPa as seen by MLS in Feb, March, and April (i.e., Fig. 1a). MLS also sees a small amount of water between 10 to 1âhPa in those days5. We inject 0.42âTg of SO2 and 150âTg of H2O from 4 UTC to 10 UTC on January 15, 2022 (ignoring the small eruption that occurred on January 13, 2022. Note that this small eruption also put ice into the lower stratosphere, up to 20âkm). The vertical distribution of SO2 is 0.3âTg from 20 to 22âkm and 0.12âTg from 22 to 28âkm with constant number densities in these layers. The vertical distribution of H2O is 103âTg from 25.5 to 27âkm, 42âTg from 27 to 30âkm, and 5âTg from 30 to 35âkm with constant concentration. We inject the plume into an area of ~6âÃâ105âkm2 between 22°Sâ14°S and 182°Eâ186°E, which is about three times larger than the anvil size observed by NOAAâs Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite 17 on January 15, 2022. This is because the MLS observes H2O occupying ~10-degree latitude bands on January 155. Also, the global model cannot spread the plume as fast as observed as we discuss in Result. We have not considered ash injection since satellite observations (e.g., OMPS measured low UV Aerosol Index) do not show evidence of notable ash persisting for a long time. CALIOP sees that the majority of the high backscatter coefficient above 20âkm correlates with low depolarization indicating the composition is mainly spherical sulfate particles. The Light Optical Aerosol Counter (LOAC) measurements at Reunion island (21.1°S, 55.3°E) on January 23 and January 26 mainly see submicron particles indicating no large volcanic ash or other large (>1âµm) volcanic particles present. Supplementary Note 1 presents several other model simulations with a larger SO2 injection amount (0.84âTg) or a wider injection band (20-degree latitude band) for both SO2_H2O and SO2only cases as sensitivity tests.
For ice cloud formation, we modified the nucleation parameterization to allow both homogeneous freezing and heterogeneous nucleation to occur in the stratosphere when temperatures are cold (<â40â°C).
Observations
The MLS instrument onboard the EOS Aura satellite was launched into a near-polar sun-synchronous orbit in 2004 and measures atmospheric composition, temperature, humidity, and cloud ice. After the HTHH eruption, MLS detected enhanced water vapor. Here we use MLS version 4 quality screened data6 and do not use MLS ice water content as recommended by Millán et al.5.
The OMPS Limb Profiler (LP)44 data have been processed to create an aerosol extinction coefficient product from measurements of the limb scattered solar radiation at six wavelengths. The sensor employs three vertical slits separated horizontally. This work uses the version 2.0 OMPS aerosol extinction coefficient product at 997ânm wavelength28 with relative accuracies and precisions close to 15%. We use the center slit aerosol retrieval because it has the most accurate radiometric calibration and stray light corrections45.
SO2 mass estimates from OMPS-NM are based on the NASA standard SNPP/OMPS SO2 vertical column density (VCD) product, retrieved using a principal component analysis (PCA) spectral fitting algorithm43 assuming a fixed a priori profile centered at 18âkm altitude. The estimated uncertainty of ~35% (error bar in Fig. 2) reflects potential errors that can be caused by the highly unusual injection height and the large amounts of aerosols and ice particles for the HTHH eruption. For OMPS data, the detection limit is based on the 1-sigma noise level of OMPS SO2 retrievals of ~0.1 DU over background, SO2-free areas. Any pixels with retrieved SO2â<â0.2 DU, we consider to be noise and for volcanic SO2 mass calculation those pixels are excluded (i.e., we calculate the total mass by summing up SO2 mass from all the OMPS pixels with SO2â>=â0.2 DU). In order to compare the modeled SO2 with observations as shown in Fig. 2, we apply a similar method as the observation by excluding modeled grid boxes with SO2â<â0.2 DU. This way, the model-based SO2 mass is calculated in a more consistent way with OMPS-based estimate. The comparisons between the modeled SO2 and OMPS-NM SO2 retrieval without applying detection limit (Supplementary Fig. 11) also agree within the error bars.
Data availability
The main data generated during this study are available at (https://osf.io/6ZXFV/) with a permanent doi 10.17605/OSF.IO/6ZXFV. OMPS-LP data are available at https://disc.gsfc.nasa.gov/datasets/OMPS_NPP_LP_L2_O3_DAILY_2/summary. CALIPSO data are available at https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/CALIPSO. SAGE III/ISS data are available at https://asdc.larc.nasa.gov/project/SAGE%20III-ISS. The TROPOMI and OMPS-NM SO2 data are available at https://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/.
Code availability
The CESM2 model is available on the CESM trunk to any registered user at www.cesm.ucar.edu.
References
Carr, J. L., Horváth, Ã., Wu, D. L. & Friberg, M. D. Stereo plume height and motion retrievals for the recordâsetting Hunga TongaâHunga Haâapai eruption of 15 January 2022. Geophys. Res. Lett. e2022GL098131, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL098131 (2022).
Proud, S. R., Prata, A. & Schmauss, S. The January 2022 eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haâapai volcano reached the mesosphere. Earth Space Sci. Open Arch. https://doi.org/10.1002/essoar.10511092.1 (2022).
Yuen, D. A. et al. Under the surface: Pressure-induced planetary-scale waves, volcanic lightning, and gaseous clouds caused by the submarine eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haâapai volcano. Earthq. Res. Adv. 100134, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eqrea.2022.100134 (2022).
Xu, J., Li, D., Bai, Z., Tao, M. & Bian, J. Large amounts of water vapor were injected into the stratosphere by the Hunga TongaâHunga Haâapai volcano eruption. Atmosphere 13, https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13060912 (2022).
Millán, L. et al. The Hunga Tonga-Hunga Haâapai hydration of the stratosphere. Geophys. Res. Lett. 49, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL099381 (2022).
Livesey, N. J. et al. Version 4.2x Level 2 and 3 data quality and description document (Tech. Rep. No. JPL Dâ33509 Rev. E) (2020).
Winker, D. M., Hunt, W. H. & McGill, M. J. Initial performance assessment of CALIOP. Geophys. Res. Lett. 34, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL030135 (2007).
Guo, S., Rose, W. I., Bluth, G. J. S. & Watson, I. M. Particles in the great Pinatubo volcanic cloud of June 1991: the role of ice. Geochem. Geophys. Geosys. 5, https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GC000655 (2004).
Mills, M. J. et al. Radiative and chemical response to interactive stratospheric sulfate aerosols in fully coupled CESM1(WACCM). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122, 13,061â13,078 (2017).
Dvortsov, V. L. & Solomon, S. Response of the stratospheric temperatures and ozone to past and future increases in stratospheric humidity. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106, 7505â7514 (2001).
Hofmann, D. & Oltmans, S. The effect of stratospheric water vapor on the heterogeneous reaction rate of ClONO2 and H2O for sulfuric acid aerosol. Geophys. Res. Lett. 19, 2211â2214 (1992).
Solomon, S. Stratospheric ozone depletion: a review of concepts and history. Rev. Geophys. 37, 275â316 (1999).
Solomon, S. et al. Emergence of healing in the Antarctic ozone layer. Science 353, 269â274 (2016).
Zhu, Y. et al. Stratospheric aerosols, Polar Stratospheric Clouds, and polar ozone depletion after the Mount Calbuco eruption in 2015. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 12,308â12,331 (2018).
LeGrande, A. N., Tsigaridis, K. & Bauer, S. E. Role of atmospheric chemistry in the climate impacts of stratospheric volcanic injections. Nat. Geosci. 9, 652â655 (2016).
de F. Forster, P. M. & Shine, K. P. Stratospheric water vapour changes as a possible contributor to observed stratospheric cooling. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26, 3309â3312 (1999).
Shindell, D. T. Climate and ozone response to increased stratospheric water vapor. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 1551â1554 (2001).
Smith, C. A., Haigh, J. D. & Toumi, R. Radiative forcing due to trends in stratospheric water vapour. Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 179â182 (2001).
Solomon, S. et al. Contributions of stratospheric water vapor to decadal changes in the rate of global warming. Science 327, 1219â1223 (2010).
Ploeger, F. et al. The stratospheric BrewerâDobson circulation inferred from age of air in the ERA5 reanalysis. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 21, 8393â8412 (2021).
Zhu, Y. et al. Persisting volcanic ash particles impact stratospheric SO2 lifetime and aerosol optical properties. Nat. Commun. 11, 4526 (2020).
Clyne, M. et al. Model physics and chemistry causing intermodel disagreement within the VolMIP-Tambora Interactive Stratospheric Aerosol ensemble. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 21, 3317â3343 (2021).
Bekki, S. Oxidation of volcanic SO2: a sink for stratospheric OH and H2O. Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 913â916 (1995).
Pinto, J. P., Turco, R. P. & Toon, O. B. Self-limiting physical and chemical effects in volcanic eruption clouds. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 94, 11165â11174 (1989).
Savarino, J., Bekki, S., Cole-Dai, J. & Thiemens, M. H. Evidence from sulfate mass independent oxygen isotopic compositions of dramatic changes in atmospheric oxidation following massive volcanic eruptions. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 108, 4671 (2003).
Theys, N. et al. Sulfur dioxide retrievals from TROPOMI onboard Sentinel-5 Precursor: algorithm theoretical basis. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 10, 119â153 (2017).
Clegg, M. & Abbatt, D. Uptake of gas-phase SO2 and H2O2 by ice surfaces: dependence on partial pressure, temperature, and surface acidity. J. Phys. Chem. A 105, 6630â6636 (2001).
Taha, G. et al. OMPS LP Version 2.0 multi-wavelength aerosol extinction coefficient retrieval algorithm. Atmos. Meas. Tech. 14, 1015â1036 (2021).
DeLand, M. Readme document for the Soumi-NPP OPMS LP L2 AER675 Daily product (2019).
Sellitto, P. et al. The unexpected radiative impact of the Hunga Tonga eruption of January 15th, 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-1562573/v1 (2022).
Schmidt, A. et al. Volcanic radiative forcing from 1979 to 2015. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 123, 12491â12508 (2018).
Huang, Y. On the longwave climate feedbacks. J. Clim. 26, 7603â7610 (2013).
Dessler, A., Schoeberl, M., Wang, T., Davis, S. & Rosenlof, K. Stratospheric water vapor feedback. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 18087â18091 (2013).
Solomon, S., Garcia, R. R., Rowland, F. S. & Wuebbles, D. J. On the depletion of Antarctic ozone. Nature 321, 755â758 (1986).
Solomon, S. et al. The role of aerosol variations in anthropogenic ozone depletion at northern midlatitudes. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 101, 6713â6727 (1996).
Shi, Q., Jayne, J., Kolb, C., Worsnop, D. & Davidovits, P. Kinetic model for reaction of ClONO2 with H2O and HCl and HOCl with HCl in sulfuric acid solutions. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106, 24259â24274 (2001).
Tie, X. & Brasseur, G. The response of stratospheric ozone to volcanic eruptions: sensitivity to atmospheric chlorine loading. Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 3035â3038 (1995).
Gettelman, A. et al. The whole atmosphere community climate model version 6 (WACCM6). J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124, 12380â12403 (2019).
Tsujino, H. et al. JRA-55 based surface dataset for driving oceanâsea-ice models (JRA55-do). Ocean Modell. 130, 79â139 (2018).
Richter, J. H. et al. Subseasonal Earth system prediction with CESM2. Weather Forecast. https://doi.org/10.1175/WAF-D-21-0163.1 (2022).
Rienecker, M. M. et al. The GEOS-5 Data Assimilation System: Documentation of Versions 5.0. 1, 5.1. 0, and 5.2. 0 (2008).
Davis, N. A., Callaghan, P., Simpson, I. R. & Tilmes, S. Specified dynamics scheme impacts on wave-mean flow dynamics, convection, and tracer transport in CESM2 (WACCM6). Atmos. Chem. Phys. 22, 197â214 (2022).
Li, C. et al. New-generation NASA Aura Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) volcanic SO2 dataset: algorithm description, initial results, and continuation with the Suomi-NPP Ozone Mapping and Profiler Suite (OMPS). Atmos. Meas. Tech. 10, 445â458 (2017).
Flynn, L. E., Seftor, C. J., Larsen, J. C. & Xu, P. In Earth Science Satellite Remote Sensing 279â296 (Springer, 2006).
Jaross, G. et al. OMPS Limb Profiler instrument performance assessment. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 119, 4399â4412 (2014).
Acknowledgements
The work at the University of Colorado Boulder was supported by NASA grant 80NSSC19K1276. This project received funding from NOAAâs Earth Radiation Budget (ERB) Initiative (CPO #03-01-07-001). This research was supported in part by NOAA cooperative agreements NA17OAR4320101 and NA22OAR4320151. C.K. acknowledges the support by LABEX-VOLTAIRE (ANR-10-LABEX-100-01). P.Y. is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (42175089, 42121004). Development, analysis, and maintenance of the OMPS-NM SO2 product are supported by the NASA Earth Science TASNPP (grant # 80NSSC18K0688) and SNPPSP (grant # 80NSSC22K0158) programs. Work at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, was carried out under a contract with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (80NM0018D0004). X.W. is supported by the NSF via the NCARâs Advanced Study Program Postdoctoral Fellowship. We thank the discussions at the SSiRC volcano forum led by Dr. Jean-Paul Vernier. We thank Dr. Nathaniel Livesey and Dr. Michelle Santee from the NASA MLS team, Dr. Margaret Tolbert from CU Boulder, Dr. Jadwiga Richter, Dr. William Randel and Dr. Mijeong Park from NCAR, Dr. Peter Colarco from NASA Goddard, Dr. Michael Pitts from NASA Langley, Dr. Ming Deng from LASP, and Dr. Tao Wang from NASA JPL, for their valuable input. NCARâs Community Earth System Model project is supported primarily by the National Science Foundation. This material is based upon work supported by the National Center for Atmospheric Research, which is a major facility sponsored by the NSF under Cooperative Agreement No. 1852977. Computing and data storage resources, including the Cheyenne supercomputer (doi:10.5065/D6RX99HX), were provided by the Computational and Information Systems Laboratory (CISL) at NCAR.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
O.B.T., C.G.B., S.T., M.J.M., K.H.R., and Y.Z. discussed the hypothesis. X.W., V.L.H., L.M., and Y.Z. analyzed the MLS H2O data and simulations. G.T. and C.K. provided aerosol data and participated the aerosol data analysis. D.K. examined the sensitivity of the stratospheric H2O abundance on the ClONO2â+âHCl reaction probability (Fig. 6c). C.G.B., S.T., M.J.M., S.G., and Y.Z. participated in the model development, preparation, and conducted simulations. R.P., P.Y., and Y.Z. analyzed the radiative impact. M.A. and T.D. interpreted CALIPSO volcanic plume observations. C.L. and N.K. provided the OMPS-NM data. All the authors wrote the manuscript and edited the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Peer review
Peer review information
Communications Earth & Environment thanks Sandip Dhomse, Chris Sioris and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work. Primary Handling Editors: Emma Liu and Clare Davis.
Additional information
Publisherâs note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the articleâs Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the articleâs Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Zhu, Y., Bardeen, C.G., Tilmes, S. et al. Perturbations in stratospheric aerosol evolution due to the water-rich plume of the 2022 Hunga-Tonga eruption. Commun Earth Environ 3, 248 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00580-w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-022-00580-w
This article is cited by
-
Warmer Antarctic summers in recent decades linked to earlier stratospheric final warming occurrences
Communications Earth & Environment (2024)
-
Convective modes reveal the incoherence of the Southern Polar Vortex
Scientific Reports (2024)
-
Strong persistent cooling of the stratosphere after the Hunga eruption
Communications Earth & Environment (2024)
-
Indirect stratospheric moisture increase after a Pinatubo-magnitude eruption can be comparable to direct increase after 2022 Hunga
Communications Earth & Environment (2024)
-
Impacts of major volcanic eruptions over the past two millennia on both global and Chinese climates: A review
Science China Earth Sciences (2024)