MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4252192709 · doi:10.5194/acp-2018-87

Estimates of Ozone Return Dates from Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative Simulations

2018· preprint· en· W4252192709 sur OpenAlexaff
Sandip Dhomse, Douglas E. Kinnison, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Irene Cionni, Michaela I. Hegglin, Nathan Luke Abraham, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Alexander T. Archibald, Ewa Bednarz, Slimane Bekki, Peter Braesicke, Neal Butchart, M. Dameris, Makoto Deushi, Stacy Frith, Steven C. Hardiman, Birgit Haßler, Larry W. Horowitz, Rong‐Ming Hu, Patrick Jöckel, Béatrice Josse, Oliver Kirner, Stefanie Kremser, Ulrike Langematz, Jared Lewis, Marion Marchand, Meiyun Lin, E. Mancini, Virginie Marécal, Martine Michou, Olaf Morgenstern, Fiona M. O’Connor, Luke D. Oman, Giovanni Pitari, David A. Plummer, J. A. Pyle, Laura E. Revell, Eugene Rozanov, Robyn Schofield, Andrea Stenke, Kane A. Stone, Kengo Sudo, Simone Tilmes, Daniele Visioni, Y. Yamashita, Guang Zeng

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typepreprint
Langueen
DomaineEarth and Planetary Sciences
ThématiqueAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Établissements canadiensEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Organismes subventionnairesMarsden FundOffice of ScienceScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research CollaborationSerono Symposia International FoundationCentre National d’Etudes SpatialesBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungAgence Nationale de la RechercheU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionNational Science FoundationRoyal SocietyDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentNatural Environment Research CouncilNew Zealand GovernmentMet OfficeDeutsches KlimarechenzentrumAustralian GovernmentSight Research UKEnvironmental Restoration and Conservation Agency
Mots-clésOzone layerOzoneClimatologyNorthern HemisphereSouthern HemisphereOzone depletionEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesLatitudeClimate modelMiddle latitudesRange (aeronautics)ArcticClimate changeMeteorologyGeographyOceanographyGeology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract. We analyse simulations performed for the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) to estimate the return dates of the stratospheric ozone layer from depletion caused by anthropogenic stratospheric chlorine and bromine. We consider a total of 155 simulations from 20 models, including a range of sensitivity studies which examine the impact of climate change on ozone recovery. For the control simulations (unconstrained by nudging towards analysed meteorology) there is a large spread (±20 DU in the global average) in the predictions of the absolute ozone column. Therefore, the model results need to be adjusted for biases against historical data. Also, the interannual variability in the model results need to be smoothed in order to provide a reasonably narrow estimate of the range of ozone return dates. Consistent with previous studies, but here for a Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) of 6.0, these new CCMI simulations project that global total column ozone will return to 1980 values in 2047 (with a 1-σ uncertainty of 2042–2052). At Southern Hemisphere mid-latitudes column ozone is projected to return to 1980 values in 2046 (2042–2050), and at Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes in 2034 (2024–2044). In the polar regions, the return dates are 2062 (2055–2066) in the Antarctic in October and 2035 (2025–2040) in the Arctic in March. The earlier return dates in the NH reflect the larger sensitivity to dynamical changes. Our estimates of return dates are later than those presented in the 2014 Ozone Assessment by approximately 5–15 years, depending on the region. In the tropics only around half the models predict a return to 1980 values, at around 2040, while the other half do not reach this value. All models show a negative trend in tropical total column ozone towards the end of the 21st century. The CCMI models generally agree in their simulation of the time evolution of stratospheric chlorine, which is the main driver of ozone loss and recovery. However, there are a few outliers which show that the multi-model mean results for ozone recovery are not as tightly constrained as possible. Throughout the stratosphere the spread of ozone return dates to 1980 values between models tends to correlate with the spread of the return of inorganic chlorine to 1980 values. In the upper stratosphere, greenhouse gas-induced cooling speeds up the return by about 10–20 years. In the lower stratosphere, and for the column, there is a more direct link in the timing of the return dates, especially for the large Antarctic depletion. Comparisons of total column ozone between the models is affected by different predictions of the evolution of tropospheric ozone within the same scenario, presumably due to differing treatment of tropospheric chemistry. Therefore, for many scenarios, clear conclusions can only be drawn for stratospheric ozone columns rather than the total column. As noted by previous studies, the timing of ozone recovery is affected by the evolution of N2O and CH4. However, the effect in the simulations analysed here is small and at the limit of detectability from the few realisations available for these experiments compared to internal model variability. The large increase in N2O given in RCP 6.0 extends the ozone return globally by ~ 15 years relative to N2O fixed at 1960 abundances, mainly because it allows tropical column ozone to be depleted. The effect in extratropical latitudes is much smaller. The large increase in CH4 given in the RCP 8.5 scenario compared to RCP 6.0 also changes ozone return by ~ 15 years, again mainly through its impact in the tropics. For future assessments of single forcing or combined effects of CO2, CH4, and N2O on the stratospheric column ozone return dates, this work suggests that is more important to have multi-member (at least 3) ensembles for each scenario from each established participating model, rather than a large number of individual models.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,381
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0250,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,035
Tête enseignante GPT0,259
Écart entre enseignants0,224 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations19
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateTravaux en français237 207