Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2017-1038
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
30 Nov 2017
Review status
This discussion paper is a preprint. It is a manuscript under review for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Large-Scale Tropospheric Transport in the Chemistry Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) Simulations
Clara Orbe1,2,3, Huang Yang2, Darryn W. Waugh2, Guang Zeng4, Olaf Morgenstern4, Douglas E. Kinnison5, Jean-Francois Lamarque5, Simone Tilmes5, David A. Plummer6, John F. Scinnoca7, Beatrice Josse8, Virginie Marecal8, Patrick Jöckel9, Luke D. Oman10, Susan E. Strahan10,11, Makoto Deushi12, Taichu Y. Tanaka12, Kohei Yoshida12, Hideharu Akiyoshi13, Yousuke Yamashita13,14, Andreas Stenke15, Laura Revell15,16, Timofei Sukhodolov15,17, Eugene Rozanov15,17, Giovanni Pitari18, Daniele Visioni18, Kane A. Stone19,20,a, and Robyn Schofield19,20 1GESTAR
2Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
3Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA
4National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand
5National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling (ACOM) Laboratory, Boulder, USA
6Climate Research Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Montreal, QC, Canada
7Climate Research Branch, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, Canada
8Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques UMR 3589, Météo-France/CNRS, Toulouse, France
9Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR), Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
10Atmospheric Chemistry and Dynamics Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA
11Universities Space Research Association
12Meteorological Research Institute (MRI), Tsukuba, Japan
13Climate Modeling and Analysis Section, Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan
14Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), Yokohama, Japan
15Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, ETH Zürich (ETHZ), Switzerland
16Bodeker Scientific, Christchurch, New Zealand
17Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos/World Radiation Centre, Davos, Switzerland
18Department of Physical and Chemical Sciences, Universitá dell'Aquila, Italy
19School of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia
20ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales 2052, Australia
anow at: the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139-4307, USA
Abstract. Understanding and modeling the large-scale transport of trace gases and aerosols is important for interpreting past (and projecting future) changes in atmospheric composition. Here we show that there are large differences in the global-scale atmospheric transport properties among models participating in the IGAC SPARC Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI). Specifically, we find up to 40 % differences in the transport timescales connecting the Northern Hemisphere (NH) midlatitude surface to the Arctic and to Southern Hemisphere high latitudes, where the mean age ranges between 1.7 years and 2.6 years. We show that these differences are related to large differences in vertical transport among the simulations and, in particular, to differences in parameterized convection over the oceans. While stronger convection over NH midlatitudes is associated with slower transport to the Arctic, stronger convection in the tropics and subtropics is associated with faster interhemispheric transport. We also show that the differences among simulations constrained with fields derived from the same reanalysis products are as large as (and, in some cases, larger than) the differences among free-running simulations, due to larger differences in parameterized convection. Our results indicate that care must be taken when using simulations constrained with analyzed winds to interpret the influence of meteorology on tropospheric composition.

Citation: Orbe, C., Yang, H., Waugh, D. W., Zeng, G., Morgenstern, O., Kinnison, D. E., Lamarque, J.-F., Tilmes, S., Plummer, D. A., Scinnoca, J. F., Josse, B., Marecal, V., Jöckel, P., Oman, L. D., Strahan, S. E., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T. Y., Yoshida, K., Akiyoshi, H., Yamashita, Y., Stenke, A., Revell, L., Sukhodolov, T., Rozanov, E., Pitari, G., Visioni, D., Stone, K. A., and Schofield, R.: Large-Scale Tropospheric Transport in the Chemistry Climate Model Initiative (CCMI) Simulations, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2017-1038, in review, 2017.
Clara Orbe et al.
Clara Orbe et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 209 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
153 55 1 209 7 3 0

Views and downloads (calculated since 30 Nov 2017)

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 30 Nov 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 209 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

Thereof 209 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country # Views %
  • 1

Saved

Discussed

Latest update: 11 Dec 2017
Publications Copernicus
Download
Share