Articles | Volume 18, issue 12
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8873-2018
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-8873-2018
Research article
 | 
25 Jun 2018
Research article |  | 25 Jun 2018

Comparison of ECHAM5/MESSy Atmospheric Chemistry (EMAC) simulations of the Arctic winter 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 with Envisat/MIPAS and Aura/MLS observations

Farahnaz Khosrawi, Oliver Kirner, Gabriele Stiller, Michael Höpfner, Michelle L. Santee, Sylvia Kellmann, and Peter Braesicke

Related authors

Impact of mountain-wave-induced temperature fluctuations on the occurrence of polar stratospheric ice clouds: a statistical analysis based on MIPAS observations and ERA5 data
Ling Zou, Reinhold Spang, Sabine Griessbach, Lars Hoffmann, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Rolf Müller, and Ines Tritscher
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 11759–11774, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11759-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-11759-2024, 2024
Short summary
Assessing the potential of free-tropospheric water vapour isotopologue satellite observations for improving the analyses of convective events
Matthias Schneider, Kinya Toride, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Frank Hase, Benjamin Ertl, Christopher J. Diekmann, and Kei Yoshimura
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 17, 5243–5259, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5243-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-17-5243-2024, 2024
Short summary
Water vapour isotopes over West Africa as observed from space: which processes control tropospheric H2O/HDO pair distributions?
Christopher Johannes Diekmann, Matthias Schneider, Peter Knippertz, Tim Trent, Hartmut Boesch, Amelie Ninja Roehling, John Worden, Benjamin Ertl, Farahnaz Khosrawi, and Frank Hase
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1613,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1613, 2024
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
Quantifying CH4 emissions from coal mine aggregation areas in Shanxi, China, using TROPOMI observations and the wind-assigned anomaly method
Qiansi Tu, Frank Hase, Kai Qin, Jason Blake Cohen, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Xinrui Zou, Matthias Schneider, and Fan Lu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 4875–4894, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4875-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-4875-2024, 2024
Short summary
The SPARC water vapour assessment II: biases and drifts of water vapour satellite data records with respect to frost point hygrometer records
Michael Kiefer, Dale F. Hurst, Gabriele P. Stiller, Stefan Lossow, Holger Vömel, John Anderson, Faiza Azam, Jean-Loup Bertaux, Laurent Blanot, Klaus Bramstedt, John P. Burrows, Robert Damadeo, Bianca Maria Dinelli, Patrick Eriksson, Maya García-Comas, John C. Gille, Mark Hervig, Yasuko Kasai, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Donal Murtagh, Gerald E. Nedoluha, Stefan Noël, Piera Raspollini, William G. Read, Karen H. Rosenlof, Alexei Rozanov, Christopher E. Sioris, Takafumi Sugita, Thomas von Clarmann, Kaley A. Walker, and Katja Weigel
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 16, 4589–4642, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4589-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-16-4589-2023, 2023
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling and Data Analysis | Altitude Range: Stratosphere | Science Focus: Chemistry (chemical composition and reactions)
Beyond self-healing: stabilizing and destabilizing photochemical adjustment of the ozone layer
Aaron Match, Edwin P. Gerber, and Stephan Fueglistaler
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10305–10322, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10305-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10305-2024, 2024
Short summary
Solar FTIR measurements of NOx vertical distributions – Part 2: Experiment-based scaling factors describing the daytime variation in stratospheric NOx
Pinchas Nürnberg, Sarah A. Strode, and Ralf Sussmann
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 10001–10012, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10001-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-10001-2024, 2024
Short summary
Technical note: Evaluation of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Cy48R1 upgrade of June 2023
Henk Eskes, Athanasios Tsikerdekis, Melanie Ades, Mihai Alexe, Anna Carlin Benedictow, Yasmine Bennouna, Lewis Blake, Idir Bouarar, Simon Chabrillat, Richard Engelen, Quentin Errera, Johannes Flemming, Sebastien Garrigues, Jan Griesfeller, Vincent Huijnen, Luka Ilić, Antje Inness, John Kapsomenakis, Zak Kipling, Bavo Langerock, Augustin Mortier, Mark Parrington, Isabelle Pison, Mikko Pitkänen, Samuel Remy, Andreas Richter, Anja Schoenhardt, Michael Schulz, Valerie Thouret, Thorsten Warneke, Christos Zerefos, and Vincent-Henri Peuch
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 9475–9514, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9475-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-9475-2024, 2024
Short summary
Analysis of a newly homogenised ozonesonde dataset from Lauder, New Zealand
Guang Zeng, Richard Querel, Hisako Shiona, Deniz Poyraz, Roeland Van Malderen, Alex Geddes, Penny Smale, Dan Smale, John Robinson, and Olaf Morgenstern
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 6413–6432, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-6413-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-6413-2024, 2024
Short summary
The return to 1980 stratospheric halogen levels: A moving target in ozone assessments from 2006 to 2022
Megan Lickley, John S. Daniel, Laura A. McBride, Ross J. Salawitch, and Guus Velders
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1289,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1289, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Arnone, E., Castelli, E., Papandrea, E., Carlotti, M., and Dinelli, B. M.: Extreme ozone depletion in the 2010–2011 Arctic winter stratosphere as observed by MIPAS/ENVISAT using a 2-D tomographic approach, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 12, 9149–9165, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-12-9149-2012, 2012. a, b, c
Atkinson, R., Baulch, D. L., Cox, R. A., Crowley, J. N., Hampson, R. F., Hynes, R. G., Jenkin, M. E., Rossi, M. J., and Troe, J.: Evaluated kinetic and photochemical data for atmospheric chemistry: Volume III – gas phase reactions of inorganic halogens, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 981–1191, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-981-2007, 2007. a
Brakebusch, M., Randall, C. E., Kinnison, D. E., Tilmes, S., Santee, M. L., and Manney, G. L.: Evaluation of Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model simulations of ozone during Arctic winter 2004–2005, J. Geophys. Res., 118, 2673–2688, https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrd.50226, 2013. a
Brühl, C., Steil, B., Stiller, G., Funke, B., and Jöckel, P.: Nitrogen compounds and ozone in the stratosphere: comparison of MIPAS satellite data with the chemistry climate model ECHAM5/MESSy1, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5585–5598, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5585-2007, 2007. a, b, c, d, e
Carslaw, K. S., Luo, B. P., Clegg, S. L., Peter, T., Brimblecombe, P., and Crutzen, P. J.: Stratospheric aerosol growth and HNO3 gas phase depletion from coupled HNO3 and water uptake by liquid particles, Geophys. Res. Lett., 21, 2479–2482, 1994. a
Download
Short summary
An extensive assessment of the performance of the chemistry–climate model EMAC is given for Arctic winters 2009/2010 and 2010/2011. The EMAC simulations are compared to satellite observations. The comparisons between EMAC simulations and satellite observations show that model and measurements compare well for these two Arctic winters. However, differences between model and observations are found that need improvements in the model in the future.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint