Articles | Volume 10, issue 16
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7697–7707, 2010
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7697-2010
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7697–7707, 2010
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-7697-2010

  18 Aug 2010

18 Aug 2010

Options to accelerate ozone recovery: ozone and climate benefits

J. S. Daniel et al.

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling | Altitude Range: Stratosphere | Science Focus: Chemistry (chemical composition and reactions)
Slow feedbacks resulting from strongly enhanced atmospheric methane mixing ratios in a chemistry–climate model with mixed-layer ocean
Laura Stecher, Franziska Winterstein, Martin Dameris, Patrick Jöckel, Michael Ponater, and Markus Kunze
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 731–754, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-731-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-731-2021, 2021
Short summary
Impact of the eruption of Mt Pinatubo on the chemical composition of the stratosphere
Markus Kilian, Sabine Brinkop, and Patrick Jöckel
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 11697–11715, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-11697-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-11697-2020, 2020
Short summary
Projecting ozone hole recovery using an ensemble of chemistry–climate models weighted by model performance and independence
Matt Amos, Paul J. Young, J. Scott Hosking, Jean-François Lamarque, N. Luke Abraham, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Alexander T. Archibald, Slimane Bekki, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Douglas Kinnison, Ole Kirner, Markus Kunze, Marion Marchand, David A. Plummer, David Saint-Martin, Kengo Sudo, Simone Tilmes, and Yousuke Yamashita
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 9961–9977, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9961-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9961-2020, 2020
Short summary
Inconsistencies between chemistry–climate models and observed lower stratospheric ozone trends since 1998
William T. Ball, Gabriel Chiodo, Marta Abalos, Justin Alsing, and Andrea Stenke
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 9737–9752, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9737-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9737-2020, 2020
Short summary
Reformulating the bromine alpha factor and equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC): evolution of ozone destruction rates of bromine and chlorine in future climate scenarios
J. Eric Klobas, Debra K. Weisenstein, Ross J. Salawitch, and David M. Wilmouth
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 9459–9471, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9459-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-9459-2020, 2020
Short summary

Cited articles

Chipperfield, M. P. and Feng, W.: Comment on: Stratospheric ozone depletion at northern mid-latitudes in the 21st century: The importance of future concentrations of greenhouse gases nitrous oxide and methane, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(7), 1389, https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL016353, 2003.
Clarke, L., Edmonds, J., Jacoby, H., Pitcher, H., Reilly, J., and Richels, R.: Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations, Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1: Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, Department of Energy, Office of Biological & Environmental Research, Washington, DC, 154 pp., 2007.
Crutzen, P. J.: The influence of nitrogen oxides on the atmospheric ozone content, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 96, 320–325, 1970.
Daniel, J. S., Solomon, S., and Albritton, D. L.: On the evaluation of halocarbon radiative forcing and global warming potentials, J. Geophys. Res., 100(D1), 1271–1285, 1995.
Daniel, J. S., Solomon, S., Portmann, R. W., and Garcia, R. R.: Stratospheric ozone destruction: The importance of bromine relative to chlorine, J. Geophys. Res., 104(D19), 23871–23880, 1999.
Download
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint