Atmospheric and Ionospheric Responses to Hunga‐Tonga Volcano Eruption Simulated by WACCM‐X

Abstract

The eruption of Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano (hereafter Hunga eruption) on 15 January 2022 was one of the largest ever recorded, comparable in size to the 1883 Krakatau eruption (Matoza et al., 2022). The volcanic cloud reached over 30 km, and the transient overshoot up to the mesosphere (Proud et al., 2022). Surface pressure perturbations were registered by barometers around the globe with magnitudes over 1 hPa (Amores et al., 2022;Matoza et al., 2022). These perturbations propagate with the acoustic speed (∼320 ms −1 ), apparently associated with Lamb wave (Wright et al., 2022). A weaker signal with a slower phase speed (∼245 ms −1 ) has also been identified from satellite observations, and has been tied to a resonance mode (

Multi‐Layer Evolution of Acoustic‐Gravity Waves and Ionospheric Disturbances Over the United States After the 2022 Hunga Tonga Volcano Eruption

“…As with other studies in response to the Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai volcano eruptions on 15 January 2022, which have already provided advances in our understanding of NH wave dynamics and effects (e.g., H.-L. Liu et al, 2023;Matoza et al, 2022;Vadas et al, 2023b;Vergoz et al, 2022;Wright et al, 2022), we reiterate and summarize the need for continued efforts in the future to understand global short-period wave dynamics. Some directions for future investigations, including some also proposed earlier by others, include efforts toward:…”

“…As with other studies in response to the Hunga Tonga‐Hunga Ha'apai volcano eruptions on 15 January 2022, which have already provided advances in our understanding of NH wave dynamics and effects (e.g., H.‐L. Liu et al., 2023; Matoza et al., 2022; Vadas et al., 2023b; Vergoz et al., 2022; Wright et al., 2022), we reiterate and summarize the need for continued efforts in the future to understand global short‐period wave dynamics. Some directions for future investigations, including some also proposed earlier by others, include efforts toward: Improved understanding of wave source processes; in particular, how the different atmospheric modes are generated and coupled in solids, oceans and the atmosphere; Understanding how atmospheric waves, in particular the Lamb wave and other AGWs, propagate through a spatially and temporally variable deep atmospheres over topography, in realistic specifications of the atmospheric meteorological state and winds; Appreciation of the nonlinear effects on wave signals recorded at large distances, and a better understanding of nonlinear effects on the vertical evolutions of AGWs, for example, as they are measured at different altitudes; Quantification of AGWs and their effects on various layers, for the purpose of understanding them as diagnostics of wave sources and for quantitative assessments of NH magnitudes or severity (e.g., tsunami risks), as well as future opportunities to define instrumented observational techniques; The synthesis of instrument observables for the propagation of AGW modes of different scales, from minutes to tens‐of‐minutes, and from ground to the upper atmosphere. …”

“…Liu et al. (2023), which seems to demonstrate this meridional variability of amplitudes of fluctuations (e.g., see their Figure 3a and provided animation).…”

“…Liu et al. (2023). We also note that the ray simulations using NAVGEM environment data markedly improve the agreement with observations, contrasting with ray‐tracing in global empirical model data from NRLMSISE‐00 and HWM‐14, which further supports this interpretation that the Lamb wave modes and related AGW (including evanescent) vertical coupling contributed to the fluctuations observed at all altitudes.…”

“…south of CONUS, leading to defocusing (reduced density of rays) over the mid-latitudes of CONUS. We also point to the simulation of Lamb wave modes with WACCM-X model by H.-L Liu et al (2023),. which seems to demonstrate this meridional variability of amplitudes of fluctuations (e.g., see their Figure3aand provided animation).…”