| Summary: | Here we respond to the comments by Cole-Dai et al. [2014] on our article Schmidt et al. [2012]. Specifically, in response to section 2 of their reply, we argued in Schmidt et al. [2012] that based on previously published estimates of the volatile release height during the 1783-1784 C.E. Laki eruption, the lack of a sulfur massindependent fractionation (MIF) anomaly is expected. In other words, no previous study on Laki ever argued that this eruption emitted SO2 into altitudes >13-15 km. In section 2.3, Cole-Dai et al. [2014] argue that the nonzero 33S value of their Laki sample 1 may be explained by a short-lived explosive phase at Laki during which volatiles reached the stratosphere. In Schmidt et al. [2012] in section 2, we argued in agreement with Cole-Dai et al. [2014] (section 3.1) that for a MIF anomaly to be preserved, the Laki volatiles would have had to be emitted in >20 km altitude. Our main point is that eruption column heights >20 km are unlikely based on the historical accounts and plume-rise modeling for the Laki eruption [Stothers et al., 1986; Woods, 1993; Thordarson and Self, 2003]. In Schmidt et al. [2012], we argued that to deduce a short-lived climatic impact of the Laki eruption based on the lack of a MIF anomaly and the length of the sulfate deposition in Greenland ice cores may be misleading because the climatic impact will outlast the radiative forcing of the Laki aerosol cloud. Cole-Dai et al. [2014] acknowledge the latter in their reply in section 4.2. We agreewith Cole-Dai et al. [2014] in that themagnitude and length of the climatic impact during the winter of 1783-1784 depends on the altitude of the volatile release during the eruption (sections 2.3 and 4.2). However, even if we assumed that during Laki all sulfur dioxide (SO2) would have been released in the troposphere, then the aerosol cloud would still be present in the upper troposphere during March 1784, as is evident from independent model simulations of this "tropospheric-only" scenario [Stevenson et al., 2003]. We acknowledge that there is uncertainty on the volatile release height for Laki; however, it is worth considering that those climate model simulations that used an injection altitude between 9 km and 13 km for the Laki SO2 [Highwood and Stevenson, 2003; Oman et al., 2006a, 2006b; Schmidt et al., 2012] best match the observed temperature changes during summer of 1783 [Angell and Korshover, 1985; Brzdil et al., 2010; Briffa et al., 1998; D'Arrigo and Jacoby, 1999; Jacoby et al., 1999; Kington, 1988; Manley, 1974; Parker et al., 1992; Thordarson and Self, 2003]. Based on these model simulations, a climatic impact during the winter of 1783-1784, albeit weaker than during the climactic phases of Laki, is expected (and our argument here does not exclude the role of natural variability in contributing to the cold winter of 1783-1784 as discussed in Schmidt et al. [2012]). Therefore, we continue to argue that for high-latitude eruptions such as Laki, the applicability of sulfur isotopic measurements to interpret the climatic relevance has yet to be demonstrated. Itmay transpire that the interpretation of MIF signals for the climate-relevance of an eruption is valid and unambiguous only for short-lived explosive eruptions in the tropics. In terms of the processes producing a MIF anomaly (section 3.3 in Cole-Dai et al. [2014]), the works by Hattori et al. [2013] and Ono et al. [2013] suggest that there are remaining issues not discussed by Cole-Dai et al. [2014], for instance, self-shielding of SO2 due to high column densities typical for eruptions of Pinatubo-scale and greater, and the preservation of the MIF signature in general.
|
|---|