Authors

V. Eyring, Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen, Wessling, Germany
N. Butchart, Climate Research Division, Met Office, Exeter, UK
D. W. Waugh, Johns Hopkins University
H. Akiyoshi, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan
J. Austin, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, NOAA, Princeton, New Jersey
S. Bekki, Service d'Aéronomie du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France
G. E. Bodeker, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Lauder, New Zealand
B. A. Boville, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
C. Brühl, Max Planck Institut für Chemie, Mainz, Germany
M. P. Chipperfield, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
E. Cordero, San Jose State UniversityFollow
M. Dameris, Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen, Wessling, Germany
M. Deushi, Meteorological Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan
V. E. Fioletov, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
S. M. Frith, Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Lanham, Maryland, USA
R. R. Garcia, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
A. Gettelman, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
M. A. Giorgetta, Max Planck Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany
V. Grewe, Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Oberpfaffenhofen, Wessling, Germany
L. Jourdain, Service d'Aéronomie du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France
D. E. Kinnison, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
E. Mancini, Dipartimento di Fisica, Università L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
E. Manzini, Istituto Nazionale di Geofisica e Vulcanologia, Bologna, Italy
M. Marchand, Service d'Aéronomie du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, France
D. R. Marsh, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
T. Nagashima, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan
P. A. Newman, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
J. E. Nielsen, Science Systems and Applications, Inc., Lanham, Maryland
S. Pawson, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
G. Pitari, Dipartimento di Fisica, Università L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy
D. A. Plummer, Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
E. Rozanov, Physical-Meteorological Observatory/World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland
M. Schraner, Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule, Zurich, Switzerland
T. G. Shepherd, University of Toronto, Toronto
K. Shibata, Meteorological Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan
R. S. Stolarski, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland
H. Struthers, National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Lauder, New Zealand
W. Tian, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
M. Yoshiki, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan

Document Type

Article

Publication Date

November 2006

Abstract

[1] Simulations of the stratosphere from thirteen coupled chemistry-climate models (CCMs) are evaluated to provide guidance for the interpretation of ozone predictions made by the same CCMs. The focus of the evaluation is on how well the fields and processes that are important for determining the ozone distribution are represented in the simulations of the recent past. The core period of the evaluation is from 1980 to 1999 but long-term trends are compared for an extended period (1960–2004). Comparisons of polar high-latitude temperatures show that most CCMs have only small biases in the Northern Hemisphere in winter and spring, but still have cold biases in the Southern Hemisphere spring below 10 hPa. Most CCMs display the correct stratospheric response of polar temperatures to wave forcing in the Northern, but not in the Southern Hemisphere. Global long-term stratospheric temperature trends are in reasonable agreement with satellite and radiosonde observations. Comparisons of simulations of methane, mean age of air, and propagation of the annual cycle in water vapor show a wide spread in the results, indicating differences in transport. However, for around half the models there is reasonable agreement with observations. In these models the mean age of air and the water vapor tape recorder signal are generally better than reported in previous model intercomparisons. Comparisons of the water vapor and inorganic chlorine (Cly) fields also show a large intermodel spread. Differences in tropical water vapor mixing ratios in the lower stratosphere are primarily related to biases in the simulated tropical tropopause temperatures and not transport. The spread in Cly, which is largest in the polar lower stratosphere, appears to be primarily related to transport differences. In general the amplitude and phase of the annual cycle in total ozone is well simulated apart from the southern high latitudes. Most CCMs show reasonable agreement with observed total ozone trends and variability on a global scale, but a greater spread in the ozone trends in polar regions in spring, especially in the Arctic. In conclusion, despite the wide range of skills in representing different processes assessed here, there is sufficient agreement between the majority of the CCMs and the observations that some confidence can be placed in their predictions.

Comments

This article originally appeared in Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres in Volume 111 Issue D22 and can be found online at this link.

Share

COinS