The response of the ozone layer under abrupt 4xCO2 in CMIP6
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Previous studies indicate a possible role of stratospheric ozone chemistry feedbacks in the climate response to 4xCO2, either via a reduction in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) or via changes in the tropospheric circulation (Nowack et al., 2015; Chiodo and Polvani, 2017). However, these effects are subject to uncertainty. Part of the uncertainty may stem from the dependency of the feedback on the pattern of the ozone response, as the radiative efficiency of ozone largely depends on its vertical distribution (Lacis et al., 1990). Here, an analysis is presented of the ozone layer response to 4xCO2 in chemistry–climate models (CCMs) which participated to CMIP inter-comparisons. In a previous study using CMIP5 models, it has been shown that under 4xCO2, ozone decreases in the tropical lower stratosphere, and increases over the high latitudes and throughout the upper stratosphere (Chiodo et al., 2018). It was also found that a substantial portion of the spread in the tropical column ozone is tied to inter-model spread in tropical upwelling, which is in turn tied to ECS. Here, we revisit this connection using 4xCO2 data from CMIP6, thereby exploiting the larger number of CCMs available than in CMIP5. In addition, we explore the linearity of the ozone response, by complementing the analysis with simulations using lower CO2 forcing levels (2xCO2). We show that the pattern of the ozone response is similar to CMIP5. In some models (e.g. WACCM), we find larger ozone responses in CMIP6 than in CMIP5, partly because of the larger ECS and thus larger upwelling response in the tropical pipe. In this presentation, we will discuss the relationship between radiative forcing, transport and ozone, as well as further implications for CMIP6 models.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".