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...
Published in: | Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres |
---|---|
Other Authors: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
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 |