MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620162105 · doi:10.5194/acp-18-11323-2018

The representation of solar cycle signals in stratospheric ozone – Part 2: Analysis of global models

2018· article· en· W2620162105 on OpenAlexaff
Amanda C. Maycock, Katja Matthes, Susann Tegtmeier, Hauke Schmidt, Rémi Thiéblemont, L. L. Hood, Hideharu Akiyoshi, Slimane Bekki, Makoto Deushi, Patrick Jöckel, Oliver Kirner, Markus Kunze, Marion Marchand, D. R. Marsh, Martine Michou, David A. Plummer, Laura E. Revell, Eugene Rozanov, Andrea Stenke, Y. Yamashita, Kohei Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersFP7 Ideas: European Research CouncilEuropean Research CouncilNatural Environment Research CouncilScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research CollaborationBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungOffice of ScienceGEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung KielAgence Nationale de la RechercheSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungU.S. Department of EnergyDeutsches KlimarechenzentrumNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSight Research UKEnvironmental Restoration and Conservation AgencyNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCoupled model intercomparison projectOzoneEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesStratosphereClimatologyOzone layerClimate modelDatabaseSolar cycleLatitudeSolar irradianceMeteorologyClimate changeComputer scienceGeographyGeologyPhysicsPlasma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The impact of changes in incoming solar irradiance on stratospheric ozone abundances should be included in climate simulations to aid in capturing the atmospheric response to solar cycle variability. This study presents the first systematic comparison of the representation of the 11-year solar cycle ozone response (SOR) in chemistry–climate models (CCMs) and in pre-calculated ozone databases specified in climate models that do not include chemistry, with a special focus on comparing the recommended protocols for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 and Phase 6 (CMIP5 and CMIP6). We analyse the SOR in eight CCMs from the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI-1) and compare these with results from three ozone databases for climate models: the Bodeker Scientific ozone database, the SPARC/Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate (AC&C) ozone database for CMIP5 and the SPARC/CCMI ozone database for CMIP6. The peak amplitude of the annual mean SOR in the tropical upper stratosphere (1–5 hPa) decreases by more than a factor of 2, from around 5 to 2 %, between the CMIP5 and CMIP6 ozone databases. This substantial decrease can be traced to the CMIP5 ozone database being constructed from a regression model fit to satellite and ozonesonde measurements, while the CMIP6 database is constructed from CCM simulations. The SOR in the CMIP6 ozone database therefore implicitly resembles the SOR in the CCMI-1 models. The structure in latitude of the SOR in the CMIP6 ozone database and CCMI-1 models is considerably smoother than in the CMIP5 database, which shows unrealistic sharp gradients in the SOR across the middle latitudes owing to the paucity of long-term ozone measurements in polar regions. The SORs in the CMIP6 ozone database and the CCMI-1 models show a seasonal dependence with enhanced meridional gradients at mid- to high latitudes in the winter hemisphere. The CMIP5 ozone database does not account for seasonal variations in the SOR, which is unrealistic. Sensitivity experiments with a global atmospheric model without chemistry (ECHAM6.3) are performed to assess the atmospheric impacts of changes in the representation of the SOR and solar spectral irradiance (SSI) forcing between CMIP5 and CMIP6. The larger amplitude of the SOR in the CMIP5 ozone database compared to CMIP6 causes a likely overestimation of the modelled tropical stratospheric temperature response between 11-year solar cycle minimum and maximum by up to 0.55 K, or around 80 % of the total amplitude. This effect is substantially larger than the change in temperature response due to differences in SSI forcing between CMIP5 and CMIP6. The results emphasize the importance of adequately representing the SOR in global models to capture the impact of the 11-year solar cycle on the atmosphere. Since a number of limitations in the representation of the SOR in the CMIP5 ozone database have been identified, we recommend that CMIP6 models without chemistry use the CMIP6 ozone database and the CMIP6 SSI dataset to better capture the climate impacts of solar variability. The SOR coefficients from the CMIP6 ozone database are published with this paper.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.681
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.225 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207