<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="no"?>
<!DOCTYPE article SYSTEM "http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/inc/acpd/copernicus.dtd">
<article language="en">
	<journal>
		<journal_title>Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics Discussions</journal_title>
		<journal_url>www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net</journal_url>
		<issn>1680-7367</issn>
		<eissn>1680-7375</eissn>
		<volume_number>2</volume_number>
		<issue_number>4</issue_number>
		<publication_year>2002</publication_year>
	</journal>
	<doi>10.5194/acpd-2-1035-2002</doi>
	<article_url>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/2/1035/2002/</article_url>
	<abstract_html>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/2/1035/2002/acpd-2-1035-2002.html</abstract_html>
	<fulltext_pdf>http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/2/1035/2002/acpd-2-1035-2002.pdf</fulltext_pdf>
	<start_page>1035</start_page>
	<end_page>1096</end_page>
	<publication_date>2002-07-31</publication_date>
	<article_title content_type="html">Uncertainties and assessments of chemistry-climate models of the stratosphere</article_title>
	<authors>
		<author numeration="1" affiliations="1">
			<name>J. Austin</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="2" affiliations="2">
			<name>D. Shindell</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="3" affiliations="3">
			<name>S. R. Beagley</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="4" affiliations="4">
			<name>C. Brühl</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="5" affiliations="5">
			<name>M. Dameris</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="6" affiliations="6">
			<name>E. Manzini</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="7" affiliations="7">
			<name>T. Nagashima</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="8" affiliations="8">
			<name>P. Newman</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="9" affiliations="8">
			<name>S. Pawson</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="10" affiliations="9">
			<name>G. Pitari</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="11" affiliations="10">
			<name>E. Rozanov</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="12" affiliations="5">
			<name>C. Schnadt</name>
		</author>
		<author numeration="13" affiliations="11">
			<name>T. G. Shepherd</name>
		</author>
	</authors>
	<affiliations>
		<affiliation numeration="1" content_type="html">Meteorological Office, London Rd., Bracknell, Berks., RG12 2SZ, UK</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="2" content_type="html">NASA-Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025, USA</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="3" content_type="html">York University, Canada</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="4" content_type="html">Max Planck Institut für Chemie, Mainz, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="5" content_type="html">DLR, Oberpfaffenhofen, Weßling, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="6" content_type="html">Max Planck Institut für Meteorologie, Hamburg, Germany</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="7" content_type="html">Center for Climate System Research, University of Tokyo, Japan</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="8" content_type="html">Goddard Earth Sciences and Technology Center, NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center Code 916, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="9" content_type="html">Dipartamento di Fisica, Università de L’Aquila, 67010 Coppito, L’Aquila, Italy</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="10" content_type="html">PMOD-WRC/ IAC ETH, Dorfstrasse 33, Davos Dorf CH-7260, Switzerland</affiliation>
		<affiliation numeration="11" content_type="html">Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada</affiliation>
	</affiliations>
	<abstract content_type="html">In recent years a number of chemistry-climate models have been developed with
      an emphasis on the stratosphere. Such models cover a wide range of timescales
      of integration and vary considerably in complexity. The results of specific
      diagnostics are here analysed to examine the differences amongst individual
      models and observations, to assess the consistency of model predictions, with
      a particular focus on polar ozone. For example, many models indicate a significant cold bias in high latitudes, the
      &apos;cold pole problem&apos;, particularly in the southern hemisphere during winter and spring. This is related to wave
      propagation from the troposphere which can be improved by improving model horizontal resolution and with the use of non-orographic gravity wave drag. As
      a result of the widely differing modeled polar temperatures, different amounts
      of polar stratospheric clouds are simulated which in turn result in varying
      ozone values in the models.&lt;br&gt;
      &lt;br&gt;
      The results are also compared to determine the possible future behaviour of
      ozone, with an emphasis on the polar regions and mid-latitudes. All models
      predict eventual ozone recovery, but give a range of results concerning its
      timing and extent. Differences in the simulation of gravity waves and planetary
      waves as well as model resolution are likely major sources of uncertainty for
      this issue. In the Antarctic, the ozone hole has probably reached almost its
      deepest although the vertical and horizontal extent of depletion may increase
      slightly further over the next few years. According to the model results, Antarctic ozone recovery could begin any year within the range 2001 to 2008.
      For the Arctic, most models indicate that small ozone losses may continue for a
      few more years and that recovery could begin any year within the range 2004 to
      2019. The start of ozone recovery in the Arctic is therefore expected to appear
      later than in the Antarctic in most models. Further, interannual variability
      will tend to mask the signal for longer in the Arctic than in the Antarctic,
      delaying still further the date at which ozone recovery may be said to have
      started. In the longer term, the model results suggest that full recovery of
      ozone to 1980 levels is not expected in the Antarctic until about the year
      2050. Earlier recovery to 1980 levels may be possible in the Arctic, but model
      differences are too large compared with the simulated changes to obtain a reliable date.</abstract>
	<references>
	</references>
</article>

