Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Journal topic

Journal metrics

IF value: 5.414
IF5.414
IF 5-year value: 5.958
IF 5-year
5.958
CiteScore value: 9.7
CiteScore
9.7
SNIP value: 1.517
SNIP1.517
IPP value: 5.61
IPP5.61
SJR value: 2.601
SJR2.601
Scimago H <br class='widget-line-break'>index value: 191
Scimago H
index
191
h5-index value: 89
h5-index89
Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-1216
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2019-1216
© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

  10 Feb 2020

10 Feb 2020

Review status
This preprint was under review for the journal ACP. A revision for further review has not been submitted.

Tropospheric ozone in CMIP6 Simulations

Paul T. Griffiths1,2, Lee T. Murray3, Guang Zeng4, Alexander T. Archibald1,2, Louisa K. Emmons5, Ian Galbally6,7, Birgit Hassler8, Larry W. Horowitz9, James Keeble1,2, Jane Liu10, Omid Moeini11, Vaishali Naik9, Fiona M. O'Connor12, Youngsub Matthew Shin1, David Tarasick11, Simone Tilmes5, Steven T. Turnock12, Oliver Wild13, Paul J. Young13,14, and Prodromos Zanis15 Paul T. Griffiths et al.
  • 1Centre for Atmospheric Science, Cambridge University, UK
  • 2National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Cambridge University, UK
  • 3Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
  • 4National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand
  • 5National Centre for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado
  • 6Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Aspendale Victoria, Australia
  • 7Centre for Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
  • 8Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
  • 9NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, USA
  • 10Department of Geography, University of Toronto, Canada
  • 11Air Quality Research Division, Environment and Climate Change, Canada
  • 12Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
  • 13Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  • 14Centre of Excellence for Environmental Data Science (CEEDS), Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
  • 15Department of Meteorology and Climatology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece

Abstract. The evolution of tropospheric ozone from 1850 to 2100 has been studied using data from Phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6). We evaluate long-term changes using coupled atmosphere-ocean chemistry-climate models, focusing on the CMIP historical and ScenarioMIP ssp370 experiments, for which detailed tropospheric ozone diagnostics were archived. The model ensemble has been evaluated against a suite of surface, sonde, and satellite observations of the past several decades, and found to reproduce well the salient spatial, seasonal and decadal variability and trends. The tropospheric ozone burden increases from 244 ± 30 Tg in 1850 to a mean value of 348 ± 15 Tg for the period 2005–2014, an increase of 40 %. Modelled present day values agree well with previous determinations (ACCENT: 336 ± 27 Tg; ACCMIP: 337 ± 23 Tg and TOAR: 340 ± 34 Tg). In the ssp370 experiments, the ozone burden reaches a maximum of 402 ± 36 Tg in 2090, before declining slightly to 396 ± 32 Tg by 2100. The ozone budget has been examined over the same period using lumped ozone production (PO3) and loss (LO3) diagnostics. There are large differences (30 %) between models in the preindustrial period, with the difference narrowing to 15 % in the present day. Both ozone production and chemical loss terms increase steadily over the period 1850 to 2100, with net chemical production (PO3-LO3) reaching a maximum around the year 2000. The residual term, which contains contributions from stratosphere-troposphere transport reaches a minimum around the same time, while dry deposition increases steadily across the experiment. Differences between the model residual terms are explained in terms of variation in tropopause height and stratospheric ozone burden.

Paul T. Griffiths et al.

Interactive discussion

Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Interactive discussion

Status: closed (peer review stopped)
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version Supplement - Supplement

Paul T. Griffiths et al.

Paul T. Griffiths et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 1,126 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
681 431 14 1,126 13 13
  • HTML: 681
  • PDF: 431
  • XML: 14
  • Total: 1,126
  • BibTeX: 13
  • EndNote: 13
Views and downloads (calculated since 10 Feb 2020)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 10 Feb 2020)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,073 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,071 with geography defined and 2 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Saved

No saved metrics found.

Discussed

No discussed metrics found.
Latest update: 04 Dec 2020
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
We analyse the CMIP6 historical and future simulations for tropospheric ozone, a species which is important for many aspects of atmospheric chemistry. We show that the current generation of models agrees well with observations, being particularly successful in capturing trends in surface ozone and its vertical distribution in the troposphere. We analyse the factors that control ozone, and show that they evolve over the period of the CMIP6 experiments.
We analyse the CMIP6 historical and future simulations for tropospheric ozone, a species which...
Citation
Altmetrics