Articles | Volume 18, issue 12
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 8873–8892, 2018

Special issue: The Modular Earth Submodel System (MESSy) (ACP/GMD inter-journal...

Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 8873–8892, 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 et al.

Related authors

Investigation of space-borne trace gas products over St. Petersburg and Yekaterinburg, Russia by using COCCON observations
Carlos Alberti, Qiansi Tu, Frank Hase, Maria V. Makarova, Konstantin Gribanov, Stefani C. Foka, Vyacheslav Zakharov, Thomas Blumenstock, Michael Buchwitz, Christopher Diekmann, Benjamin Ertl, Matthias M. Frey, Hamud Kh. Imhasin, Dmitry V. Ionov, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Sergey I. Osipov, Maximilian Reuter, Matthias Schneider, and Thorsten Warneke
Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss.,,, 2021
Preprint under review for AMT
Short summary
Can the assimilation of water isotopologue observation improve the quality of tropical diabatic heating and precipitation?
Farahnaz Khosrawi, Kinya Toride, Kei Yoshimura, Christopher J. Diekmann, Benjamin Ertl, Frank Hase, and Matthias Schneider
Weather Clim. Dynam. Discuss.,,, 2021
Preprint under review for WCD
Short summary
Challenge of modelling GLORIA observations of UT/LMS trace gas and cloud distributions at high latitudes: a case study with state-of-the-art models
Florian Haenel, Wolfgang Woiwode, Jennifer Buchmüller, Felix Friedl-Vallon, Michael Höpfner, Sören Johansson, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Oliver Kirner, Anne Kleinert, Hermann Oelhaf, Johannes Orphal, Roland Ruhnke, Björn-Martin Sinnhuber, Jörn Ungermann, Michael Weimer, and Peter Braesicke
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.,,, 2021
Preprint under review for ACP
Short summary
Quantification of CH4 emissions from waste disposal sites near the city of Madrid using ground- and space-based observations of COCCON, TROPOMI and IASI
Qiansi Tu, Frank Hase, Matthias Schneider, Omaira García, Thomas Blumenstock, Tobias Borsdorff, Matthias Frey, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Alba Lorente, Carlos Alberti, Juan J. Bustos, Andre Butz, Virgilio Carreño, Emilio Cuevas, Roger Curcoll, Christopher J. Diekmann, Darko Dubravica, Benjamin Ertl, Carme Estruch, Sergio Fabián León-Luis, Carlos Marrero, Josep-Anton Morgui, Ramón Ramos, Christian Scharun, Carsten Schneider, Eliezer Sepúlveda, Carlos Toledano, and Carlos Torres
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.,,, 2021
Preprint under review for ACP
Short summary
Pollution trace gases C2H6, C2H2, HCOOH, and PAN in the North Atlantic UTLS: observations and simulations
Gerald Wetzel, Felix Friedl-Vallon, Norbert Glatthor, Jens-Uwe Grooß, Thomas Gulde, Michael Höpfner, Sören Johansson, Farahnaz Khosrawi, Oliver Kirner, Anne Kleinert, Erik Kretschmer, Guido Maucher, Hans Nordmeyer, Hermann Oelhaf, Johannes Orphal, Christof Piesch, Björn-Martin Sinnhuber, Jörn Ungermann, and Bärbel Vogel
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 8213–8232,,, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Gases | Research Activity: Atmospheric Modelling | Altitude Range: Stratosphere | Science Focus: Chemistry (chemical composition and reactions)
Effects of enhanced downwelling of NOx on Antarctic upper-stratospheric ozone in the 21st century
Ville Maliniemi, Hilde Nesse Tyssøy, Christine Smith-Johnsen, Pavle Arsenovic, and Daniel R. Marsh
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 11041–11052,,, 2021
Short summary
Processes influencing lower stratospheric water vapour in monsoon anticyclones: insights from Lagrangian modelling
Nuria Pilar Plaza, Aurélien Podglajen, Cristina Peña-Ortiz, and Felix Ploeger
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 9585–9607,,, 2021
Short summary
Evaluating stratospheric ozone and water vapour changes in CMIP6 models from 1850 to 2100
James Keeble, Birgit Hassler, Antara Banerjee, Ramiro Checa-Garcia, Gabriel Chiodo, Sean Davis, Veronika Eyring, Paul T. Griffiths, Olaf Morgenstern, Peer Nowack, Guang Zeng, Jiankai Zhang, Greg Bodeker, Susannah Burrows, Philip Cameron-Smith, David Cugnet, Christopher Danek, Makoto Deushi, Larry W. Horowitz, Anne Kubin, Lijuan Li, Gerrit Lohmann, Martine Michou, Michael J. Mills, Pierre Nabat, Dirk Olivié, Sungsu Park, Øyvind Seland, Jens Stoll, Karl-Hermann Wieners, and Tongwen Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 5015–5061,,, 2021
Short summary
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,,, 2021
Short summary
An Arctic Ozone Hole in 2020 If Not For the Montreal Protocol
Catherine Wilka, Susan Solomon, Doug Kinnison, and David Tarasick
Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss.,,, 2021
Revised manuscript accepted for ACP
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,, 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,, 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,, 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,, 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
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.
Final-revised paper