English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT

Released

Journal Article

Simulation of the climate impact of Mt. Pinatubo eruption using ECHAM5 – Part 2: Sensitivity to the phase of the QBO

MPS-Authors
/persons/resource/persons37355

Thomas,  M. A.
IMPRS on Earth System Modelling, MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons37156

Giorgetta,  M. A.
Climate Modelling, The Atmosphere in the Earth System, MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;

/persons/resource/persons37356

Timmreck,  C.
Middle and Upper Atmosphere, The Atmosphere in the Earth System, MPI for Meteorology, Max Planck Society;

External Resource
No external resources are shared
Fulltext (restricted access)
There are currently no full texts shared for your IP range.
Fulltext (public)

acp-9-3001-2009.pdf
(Publisher version), 3MB

Supplementary Material (public)
There is no public supplementary material available
Citation

Thomas, M. A., Giorgetta, M. A., Timmreck, C., Graf, H.-F., & Stenchikov, G. (2009). Simulation of the climate impact of Mt. Pinatubo eruption using ECHAM5 – Part 2: Sensitivity to the phase of the QBO. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 9, 3001-3009. doi:10.5194/acp-9-3001-2009.


Cite as: https://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0011-F86F-0
Abstract
The sensitivity of the climate impact of Mt. Pinatubo eruption in the tropics and extratropics to different QBO phases is investigated. Mt. Pinatubo erupted in June 1991 during the easterly phase of the QBO at 30 hPa and the phase change to westerly took place in August 1992. Here, the consequences are analyzed if the QBO phase had been in the opposite phase during the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Hence, in this study, simulations are carried out using the middle atmosphere configuration of ECHAM5 general circulation model for two cases - one with the observed QBO phase and the other with the opposite QBO phase. The response of temperature and geopotential height in the lower stratosphere is evaluated for the following cases - (1) when only the effects of the QBO are included and (2) when the effects of aerosols, QBO and SSTs (combined response) are included. The tropical QBO signature in the lower stratospheric temperature is well captured in the pure QBO responses and in the combined(aerosol + ocean + QBO) responses. The response of the extratropical atmosphere to the QBO during the second winter after the eruption is captured realistically in the case of the combined forcing showing a strengthening of the polar vortex when the QBO is in its westerly phase and a warm, weak polar vortex in the easterly QBO phase. The vortex is disturbed during the first winter irrespective of the QBO phases in the combined responses and this may be due to the strong influences of El Nino during the first winters after eruption. However, the pure QBO experiments do not realistically reproduce a strengthening of the polar vortex in the westerly QBO phase, even though below normal temperatures in the high latitudes are seen in October-November-December months when the oppositeQBO phase is prescribed instead of the December-January-February wintermonths used here for averaging. [References: 37]