Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no‐chemistry climate models

Using nine chemistry-climate and eight associated no-chemistry models, we investigate the persistence and timing of cold episodes occurring in the Arctic and Antarctic stratosphere during the period 1980-2014. We find systematic differences in behavior between members of these model pairs. In a firs...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Other Authors: Morgenstern, Olaf (author), Kinnison, Douglas E. (author), Mills, Michael (author), Michou, Martine (author), Horowitz, Larry W. (author), Lin, Pu (author), Deushi, Makoto (author), Yoshida, Kohei (author), O’Connor, Fiona M. (author), Tang, Yongming (author), Abraham, N. Luke (author), Keeble, James (author), Dennison, Fraser (author), Rozanov, Eugene (author), Egorova, Tatiana (author), Sukhodolov, Timofei (author), Zeng, Guang (author)
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: 2022
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037123
id ftncar:oai:drupal-site.org:articles_25834
record_format openpolar
institution Open Polar
collection OpenSky (NCAR/UCAR - National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research)
op_collection_id ftncar
language English
description Using nine chemistry-climate and eight associated no-chemistry models, we investigate the persistence and timing of cold episodes occurring in the Arctic and Antarctic stratosphere during the period 1980-2014. We find systematic differences in behavior between members of these model pairs. In a first group of chemistry models whose dynamical configurations mirror their no-chemistry counterparts, we find an increased persistence of such cold polar vortices, such that these cold episodes often start earlier and last longer, relative to the times of occurrence of the lowest temperatures. Also the date of occurrence of the lowest temperatures, both in the Arctic and the Antarctic, is often delayed by 1-3 weeks in chemistry models, versus their no-chemistry counterparts. This behavior exacerbates a widespread problem occurring in most or all models, a delayed occurrence, in the median, of the most anomalously cold day during such cold winters. In a second group of model pairs there are differences beyond just ozone chemistry. In particular, here the chemistry models feature more levels in the stratosphere, a raised model top, and differences in non-orographic gravity wave drag versus their no-chemistry counterparts. Such additional dynamical differences can completely mask the above influence of ozone chemistry. The results point toward a need to retune chemistry-climate models versus their no-chemistry counterparts.
author2 Morgenstern, Olaf (author)
Kinnison, Douglas E. (author)
Mills, Michael (author)
Michou, Martine (author)
Horowitz, Larry W. (author)
Lin, Pu (author)
Deushi, Makoto (author)
Yoshida, Kohei (author)
O’Connor, Fiona M. (author)
Tang, Yongming (author)
Abraham, N. Luke (author)
Keeble, James (author)
Dennison, Fraser (author)
Rozanov, Eugene (author)
Egorova, Tatiana (author)
Sukhodolov, Timofei (author)
Zeng, Guang (author)
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
title Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no‐chemistry climate models
spellingShingle Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no‐chemistry climate models
title_short Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no‐chemistry climate models
title_full Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no‐chemistry climate models
title_fullStr Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no‐chemistry climate models
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no‐chemistry climate models
title_sort comparison of arctic and antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no‐chemistry climate models
publishDate 2022
url https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037123
geographic Antarctic
Arctic
The Antarctic
geographic_facet Antarctic
Arctic
The Antarctic
genre Antarc*
Antarctic
Arctic
Arctic
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctic
Arctic
Arctic
op_relation Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres--JGR Atmospheres--2169-897X--2169-8996
Multi-Sensor Reanalysis (MSR) of total ozone, version 2--10.21944/temis-ozone-msr2
NCAR CESM2-WACCM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10071
NCAR CESM2-FV2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.11297
NCAR CESM2-WACCM-FV2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.11298
CMIP6 simulations of the CNRM-CERFACS based on CNRM-CM6-1 model for CMIP experiment historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4066
CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-ESM2-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4068
CSIRO-ARCCSS ACCESS-CM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP amip--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4239
MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP amip--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5853
MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6109
MOHC UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6113
MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP amip--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6464
MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6842
NCAR CESM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.7627
NIMS-KMA UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8379
NOAA-GFDL GFDL-CM4 model output historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8594
NOAA-GFDL GFDL-ESM4 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8597
ERA5 monthly averaged data on pressure levels from 1979 to present--10.24381/cds.6860a573
Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no-chemistry climate models--10.5281/zenodo.6972644
articles:25834
doi:10.1029/2022JD037123
ark:/85065/d7pk0kzs
op_rights Copyright author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037123
container_title Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
container_volume 127
container_issue 20
_version_ 1796300697336020992
spelling ftncar:oai:drupal-site.org:articles_25834 2024-04-14T08:04:15+00:00 Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no‐chemistry climate models Morgenstern, Olaf (author) Kinnison, Douglas E. (author) Mills, Michael (author) Michou, Martine (author) Horowitz, Larry W. (author) Lin, Pu (author) Deushi, Makoto (author) Yoshida, Kohei (author) O’Connor, Fiona M. (author) Tang, Yongming (author) Abraham, N. Luke (author) Keeble, James (author) Dennison, Fraser (author) Rozanov, Eugene (author) Egorova, Tatiana (author) Sukhodolov, Timofei (author) Zeng, Guang (author) 2022-10-27 https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037123 en eng Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres--JGR Atmospheres--2169-897X--2169-8996 Multi-Sensor Reanalysis (MSR) of total ozone, version 2--10.21944/temis-ozone-msr2 NCAR CESM2-WACCM model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.10071 NCAR CESM2-FV2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.11297 NCAR CESM2-WACCM-FV2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.11298 CMIP6 simulations of the CNRM-CERFACS based on CNRM-CM6-1 model for CMIP experiment historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4066 CNRM-CERFACS CNRM-ESM2-1 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4068 CSIRO-ARCCSS ACCESS-CM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP amip--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.4239 MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP amip--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.5853 MOHC HadGEM3-GC31-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6109 MOHC UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6113 MPI-M MPI-ESM1.2-LR model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP amip--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6464 MRI MRI-ESM2.0 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.6842 NCAR CESM2 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.7627 NIMS-KMA UKESM1.0-LL model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8379 NOAA-GFDL GFDL-CM4 model output historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8594 NOAA-GFDL GFDL-ESM4 model output prepared for CMIP6 CMIP historical--10.22033/ESGF/CMIP6.8597 ERA5 monthly averaged data on pressure levels from 1979 to present--10.24381/cds.6860a573 Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric climates in chemistry versus no-chemistry climate models--10.5281/zenodo.6972644 articles:25834 doi:10.1029/2022JD037123 ark:/85065/d7pk0kzs Copyright author(s). This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. article Text 2022 ftncar https://doi.org/10.1029/2022JD037123 2024-03-21T18:00:26Z Using nine chemistry-climate and eight associated no-chemistry models, we investigate the persistence and timing of cold episodes occurring in the Arctic and Antarctic stratosphere during the period 1980-2014. We find systematic differences in behavior between members of these model pairs. In a first group of chemistry models whose dynamical configurations mirror their no-chemistry counterparts, we find an increased persistence of such cold polar vortices, such that these cold episodes often start earlier and last longer, relative to the times of occurrence of the lowest temperatures. Also the date of occurrence of the lowest temperatures, both in the Arctic and the Antarctic, is often delayed by 1-3 weeks in chemistry models, versus their no-chemistry counterparts. This behavior exacerbates a widespread problem occurring in most or all models, a delayed occurrence, in the median, of the most anomalously cold day during such cold winters. In a second group of model pairs there are differences beyond just ozone chemistry. In particular, here the chemistry models feature more levels in the stratosphere, a raised model top, and differences in non-orographic gravity wave drag versus their no-chemistry counterparts. Such additional dynamical differences can completely mask the above influence of ozone chemistry. The results point toward a need to retune chemistry-climate models versus their no-chemistry counterparts. Article in Journal/Newspaper Antarc* Antarctic Arctic Arctic OpenSky (NCAR/UCAR - National Center for Atmospheric Research/University Corporation for Atmospheric Research) Antarctic Arctic The Antarctic Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres 127 20