Trends in measured and modeled lower stratospheric Antarctic vortex ozone over the past two decades

Froidevaux, Lucien; Schwartz, Michael J.; Kinnison, Douglas E.; Livesey, Nathaniel J.; Manney, Gloria L.; Santee, Michelle L.; Read, William G.; Fuller, Ryan A.

doi:10.5194/acp-26-15309-2026

Articles | Volume 26, issue 21

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-15309-2026

© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-26-15309-2026

© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 26, issue 21

Research article

|

30 Oct 2026

Research article |

| 30 Oct 2026

Trends in measured and modeled lower stratospheric Antarctic vortex ozone over the past two decades

Lucien Froidevaux, Michael J. Schwartz, Douglas E. Kinnison, Nathaniel J. Livesey, Gloria L. Manney, Michelle L. Santee, William G. Read, and Ryan A. Fuller

Download

Final revised paper (published on 30 Oct 2026)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 29 Apr 2026)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2026-2273', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Jun 2026
This manuscript is well-written. I have only minor comments on this.
The paper should be better motivated, rather than saying MLS has long-term data and was devised to track ozone and associated chemistry from space. I agree this, but there are also MLS-led studies on the same topic, although for different time periods.

The model and measurement differences have to be discussed by comparing with similar studies in the past. There are several CTM simulations and measurement comparisons. Please check whether your analysis is consistent or not in terms of the differences or chlorine activation.

The slow deactivation is a known issue. ClO and HCl comparisons would show this. However, what about PSCs? Are these well represented in the model? How good is the PSC simulation in the model?

Vortex edge definition and estimation are not clear. Please elaborate.

Line 251: Is there any reason for this difference?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2273-RC1
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2273', Kris Wargan, 17 Jun 2026

My comments are attached as a PDF file.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2273-RC2
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2273', Michael J. Schwartz, 31 Jul 2026

Response to referee 1

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2273-AC1
AC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2273', Michael J. Schwartz, 31 Jul 2026

Response to referee #2

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2273-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

AR by Michael J. Schwartz on behalf of the Authors (01 Aug 2026) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (03 Aug 2026) by Jens-Uwe Grooß

AR by Michael J. Schwartz on behalf of the Authors (11 Aug 2026) Manuscript

Download

Article (7128 KB)
Full-text XML

Short summary

We examine 20 years (2004–2023) of vertical profiles of winter/spring lower stratospheric ozone inside the Antarctic vortex, based on satellite observations and a chemistry climate model. The observations show increases in the smallest ozone values, as well as trends consistent with a slow recovery from the long-term impact of ozone-depleting substances. The model also shows some reductions in lower stratospheric seasonal Antarctic ozone losses, in broad agreement with the observations.