ALBERT

Description: We analyse simulations performed for the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) to estimate the return dates of the stratospheric ozone layer from depletion caused by anthropogenic stratospheric chlorine and bromine. We consider a total of 155 simulations from 20 models, including a range of sensitivity studies which examine the impact of climate change on ozone recovery. For the control simulations (unconstrained by nudging towards analysed meteorology) there is a large spread (+/-20 DU in the global average) in the predictions of the absolute ozone column. Therefore, the model results need to be adjusted for biases against historical data. Also, the interannual variability in the model results need to be smoothed in order to provide a reasonably narrow estimate of the range of ozone return dates. Consistent with previous studies, but here for a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) of 6.0, these new 10 CCMI simulations project that global total column ozone will return to 1980 values in 2049 (with a 1- uncertainty of 2043-2055). At Southern Hemisphere mid-latitudes column ozone is projected to return to 1980 values in 2045 (2039-2050), and at Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes in 2032 (2020-2044). In the Polar Regions, the return dates are 2060 (2055-2066) in the Antarctic in October and 2034 (2025-2043) in the Arctic in March. The earlier return dates in the NH reflect the larger sensitivity to dynamical changes. Our estimates of return dates are later than those presented in the 2014 Ozone Assessment by approximately 5-17 years, depending on the region, with the previous best estimates often falling outside of our uncertainty range. In the tropics only around half the models predict a return of ozone to 1980 values, at around 2040, while the other half do not reach the 1980 value. All models show a negative trend in tropical total column ozone towards the end of the 21st century. The CCMI models generally agree in their simulation of the time evolution of stratospheric chlorine and bromine, which are the main drivers of ozone loss and recovery. However, there are a few outliers which show that the multi-model mean results for ozone recovery are not as tightly constrained as possible. Throughout the stratosphere the spread of ozone return dates to 1980 values between models tends to correlate with the spread of the return of inorganic chlorine to 1980 values. In the upper stratosphere, greenhouse gas-induced cooling speeds up the return by about 10-20 years. In the lower stratosphere, and for the column, there is a more direct link in the timing of the return dates of ozone and chlorine, especially for the large Antarctic depletion. Comparisons of total column ozone between the models is affected by different predictions of the evolution of tropospheric ozone within the same scenario, presumably due to differing treatment of tropospheric chemistry. Therefore, for many scenarios, clear conclusions can only be drawn for stratospheric ozone columns rather than the total column. As noted by previous studies, the timing of ozone recovery is affected by the evolution of N2O and CH4. However, quantifying the effect in the simulations analysed here is limited by the few realisations available for these experiments compared to internal model variability. The large increase in N2O given in RCP 6.0 extends the ozone return globally by ~15 years relative to N2O fixed at 1960 abundances, mainly because it allows tropical column ozone to be depleted. The effect in extratropical latitudes is much smaller. The large increase in CH4 given in the RCP 8.5 scenario compared to RCP 6.0 also lengthens ozone return by ~15 years, again mainly through its impact in the tropics. Overall, our estimates of ozone return dates are uncertain due to both uncertainties in future scenarios, in particular of greenhouse gases, and uncertainties in models. The scenario uncertainty is small in the short term but increases with time, and becomes large by the end of the century. There are still some model-model differences related to well-known processes which affect ozone recovery. Efforts need to continue to ensure that models used for assessment purposes accurately represent stratospheric chemistry and the prescribed scenarios of ozone-depleting substances, and only those models are used to calculate return dates. For future assessments of single forcing or combined effects of CO2, CH4, and N2O on the stratospheric column ozone return dates, this work suggests that is more important to have multi-member (at least 3) ensembles for each scenario from every established participating model, rather than a large number of individual models.

Description: The representation of upper tropospheric/lower stratospheric (UTLS) jet and tropopause characteristics is compared in five modern high-resolution reanalyses for 1980 through 2014. Climatologies of upper tropospheric jet, subvortex jet (the lowermost part of the stratospheric vortex), and multiple tropopause frequency distributions in MERRA (Modern Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications), ERA-I (the ECMWF interim reanalysis), JRA-55 (the Japanese 55-year Reanalysis), and CFSR (the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis) are compared with those in MERRA-2. Differences between alternate products from individual reanalysis systems are assessed; in particular, a comparison of CFSR data on model and pressure levels highlights the importance of vertical grid spacing. Most of the differences in distributions of UTLS jets and multiple tropopauses are consistent with the differences in assimilation model grids and resolution: For example, ERA-I (with coarsest native horizontal resolution) typically shows a significant low bias in upper tropospheric jets with respect to MERRA-2, and JRA-55 a more modest one, while CFSR (with finest native horizontal resolution) shows a high bias with respect to MERRA-2 in both upper tropospheric jets and multiple tropopauses. Vertical temperature structure and grid spacing are especially important for multiple tropopause characterization. Substantial differences between MERRA and MERRA-2 are seen in mid- to high-latitude southern hemisphere winter upper tropospheric jets and multiple tropopauses, and in the upper tropospheric jets associated with tropical circulations during the solstice seasons; some of the largest differences from the other reanalyses are seen in the same times and places. Very good qualitative agreement among the reanalyses is seen between the large scale climatological features in UTLS jet and multiple tropopause distributions. Quantitative differences may, however, have important consequences for transport and variability studies. Our results highlight the importance of considering reanalyses differences in UTLS studies, especially in relation to resolution and model grids; this is particularly critical when using high-resolution reanalyses as an observational reference for evaluating global chemistry climate models.

Description: Reanalysis data sets are widely used to understand atmospheric processes and past variability, and are often used to stand in as observations for comparisons with climate model output. Because of the central role of water vapor (WV) and ozone (O3) in climate change, it is important to understand how accurately and consistently these species are represented in existing global reanalyses. In this paper, we present the results of WV and O3 intercomparisons that have been performed as part of the SPARC (Stratosphere-troposphere Processes and their Role in Climate) Reanalysis Intercomparison Project (SRIP). The comparisons cover a range of timescales and evaluate both inter-reanalysis and observation-reanalysis differences. We also provide a systematic documentation of the treatment of WV and O3 in current reanalyses to aid future research and guide the interpretation of differences amongst reanalysis fields.The assimilation of total column ozone (TCO) observations in newer reanalyses results in realistic representations of TCO in reanalyses except when data coverage is lacking, such as during polar night. The vertical distribution of ozone is also relatively well represented in the stratosphere in reanalyses, particularly given the relatively weak constraints on ozone vertical structure provided by most assimilated observations and the simplistic representations of ozone photochemical processes in most of the reanalysis forecast models. However, significant biases in the vertical distribution of ozone are found in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere in all reanalyses.In contrast to O3, reanalysis estimates of stratospheric WV are not directly constrained by assimilated data. Observations of atmospheric humidity are typically used only in the troposphere, below a specified vertical level at or near the tropopause. The fidelity of reanalysis stratospheric WV products is therefore mainly dependent on the reanalyses representation of the physical drivers that influence stratospheric WV, such as temperatures in the tropical tropopause layer, methane oxidation, and the stratospheric overturning circulation. The lack of assimilated observations and known deficiencies in the representation of stratospheric transport in reanalyses result in much poorer agreement amongst observational and reanalysis estimates of stratospheric WV. Hence, stratospheric WV products from the current generation of reanalyses should generally not be used in scientific studies.

Description: No abstract available

Description: Understanding changes in UTLS ozone is exceptionally challenging because of large spatial and temporal variability and because of the difficulty of satellite measurements in the UTLS. It is also exceptionally important: for example, to understand climate impacts of radiatively active substances and to understand physical and biological effects of pollution transport and stratosphere-troposphere exchange (STE). Multi-decadal global observations of UTLS ozone are now available from numerous satellite platforms, as well as local and regional observations from aircraft, balloons, and lidar. The upper tropospheric (UT) jets and tropopauses are important drivers of composition variability in the UTLS, acting as transport barriers and controlling STE and long-range transport. We report here on investigations of relationships between extratropical UTLS ozone variability and dynamical diagnostics of mixing / transport barriers, Rossby Wave breaking, and stratosphere-troposphere exchange. We will view these relationships in the context of ozone mapped into dynamical coordinates with respect to the UTLS jets and / or the tropopause. This work will help provide direction for analyses within the Stratosphere-troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate (SPARC) Observed Composition Trends and Variability in the UTLS (OCTAV-UTLS) activity, which aims to use dynamical coordinate mapping to help detect and attribute observed UTLS composition trends, and to project future data needs to better quantify those trends. The work we report on here will focus on satellite ozone observations (primarily from the Aura Microwave Limb Sounder, additionally from ACE-FTS and OSIRIS) and assimilated ozone and dynamical fields (from multiple reanalyses); we will also provide some examples of comparisons with aircraft and balloon observations.

Description: We present an overview of state-of-the-art chemistry-climate and chemistry transport models that are used within phase 1 of the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI-1). The CCMI aims to conduct a detailed evaluation of participating models using process-oriented diagnostics derived from observations in order to gain confidence in the models' projections of the stratospheric ozone layer, tropospheric composition, air quality, where applicable global climate change, and the interactions between them. Interpretation of these diagnostics requires detailed knowledge of the radiative, chemical, dynamical, and physical processes incorporated in the models. Also an understanding of the degree to which CCMI-1 recommendations for simulations have been followed is necessary to understand model responses to anthropogenic and natural forcing and also to explain inter-model differences. This becomes even more important given the ongoing development and the ever-growing complexity of these models. This paper also provides an overview of the available CCMI-1 simulations with the aim of informing CCMI data users.

Description: Reanalysis data sets are widely used to understand atmospheric processes and past variability, and are often used to stand in as "observations" for comparisons with climate model output. Because of the central role of water vapor (WV) and ozone (O3) in climate change, it is important to understand how accurately and consistently these species are represented in existing global reanalyses. In this paper, we present the results of WV and O3 intercomparisons that have been performed as part of the SPARC (Stratosphere–troposphere Processes and their Role in Climate) Reanalysis Intercomparison Project (S-RIP). The comparisons cover a range of timescales and evaluate both inter-reanalysis and observation-reanalysis differences. We also provide a systematic documentation of the treatment of WV and O3 in current reanalyses to aid future research and guide the interpretation of differences amongst reanalysis fields. The assimilation of total column ozone (TCO) observations in newer reanalyses results in realistic representations of TCO in reanalyses except when data coverage is lacking, such as during polar night. The vertical distribution of ozone is also relatively well represented in the stratosphere in reanalyses, particularly given the relatively weak constraints on ozone vertical structure provided by most assimilated observations and the simplistic representations of ozone photochemical processes in most of the reanalysis forecast models. However, significant biases in the vertical distribution of ozone are found in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere in all reanalyses. In contrast to O3, reanalysis estimates of stratospheric WV are not directly constrained by assimilated data. Observations of atmospheric humidity are typically used only in the troposphere, below a specified vertical level at or near the tropopause. The fidelity of reanalysis stratospheric WV products is therefore mainly dependent on the reanalyses' representation of the physical drivers that influence stratospheric WV, such as temperatures in the tropical tropopause layer, methane oxidation, and the stratospheric overturning circulation. The lack of assimilated observations and known deficiencies in the representation of stratospheric transport in reanalyses result in much poorer agreement amongst observational and reanalysis estimates of stratospheric WV. Hence, stratospheric WV products from the current generation of reanalyses should generally not be used in scientific studies.

Description: The climate research community uses atmospheric reanalysis data sets to understand a wide range of processes and variability in the atmosphere, yet different reanalyses may give very different results for the same diagnostics. The Stratosphere–troposphere Processes And their Role in Climate (SPARC) Reanalysis Intercomparison Project (S-RIP) is a coordinated activity to compare reanalysis data sets using a variety of key diagnostics. The objectives of this project are to identify differences among reanalyses and understand their underlying causes, to provide guidance on appropriate usage of various reanalysis products in scientific studies, particularly those of relevance to SPARC, and to contribute to future improvements in the reanalysis products by establishing collaborative links between reanalysis centres and data users. The project focuses predominantly on differences among reanalyses, although studies that include operational analyses and studies comparing reanalyses with observations are also included when appropriate. The emphasis is on diagnostics of the upper troposphere, stratosphere, and lower mesosphere. This paper summarizes the motivation and goals of the S-RIP activity and extensively reviews key technical aspects of the reanalysis data sets that are the focus of this activity. The special issue "The SPARC Reanalysis Intercomparison Project (S-RIP)" in this journal serves to collect research with relevance to the S-RIP in preparation for the publication of the planned two (interim and full) S-RIP reports.