We present an overview of state-of-the-art chemistry–climate and chemistry transport models that are used within phase 1 of the Chemistry–Climate Model Initiative (CCMI-1). The CCMI aims to conduct a detailed evaluation of participating models using process-oriented diagnostics derived from observations in order to gain confidence in the models' projections of the stratospheric ozone layer, tropospheric composition, air quality, where applicable global climate change, and the interactions between them. Interpretation of these diagnostics requires detailed knowledge of the radiative, chemical, dynamical, and physical processes incorporated in the models. Also an understanding of the degree to which CCMI-1 recommendations for simulations have been followed is necessary to understand model responses to anthropogenic and natural forcing and also to explain inter-model differences. This becomes even more important given the ongoing development and the ever-growing complexity of these models. This paper also provides an overview of the available CCMI-1 simulations with the aim of informing CCMI data users.

>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 2049 (with a 1σ uncertainty of 2043–2055). At Southern Hemisphere mid-latitudes column ozone is projected to return to 1980 values in 2045 (2039–2050), and at Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes in 2032 (2020–2044). In the polar regions, the return dates are 2060 (2055–2066) in the Antarctic in October and 2034 (2025–2043) in the Arctic in March. The earlier return dates in the Northern Hemisphere reflect the larger sensitivity to dynamical changes. Our estimates of return dates are later than those presented in the 2014 Ozone Assessment by approximately 5–17 years, depending on the region, with the previous best estimates often falling outside of our uncertainty range. In the tropics only around half the models predict a return of ozone to 1980 values, around 2040, while the other half do not reach the 1980 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 and bromine, which are the main drivers 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 of ozone and chlorine, 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, quantifying the effect in the simulations analysed here is limited by 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 lengthens ozone return by ∼ 15 years, again mainly through its impact in the tropics. Overall, our estimates of ozone return dates are uncertain due to both uncertainties in future scenarios, in particular those of greenhouse gases, and uncertainties in models. The scenario uncertainty is small in the short term but increases with time, and becomes large by the end of the century. There are still some model–model differences related to well-known processes which affect ozone recovery. Efforts need to continue to ensure that models used for assessment purposes accurately represent stratospheric chemistry and the prescribed scenarios of ozone-depleting substances, and only those models are used to calculate return dates. 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 it is more important to have multi-member (at least three) ensembles for each scenario from every established participating model, rather than a large number of individual models.

Water vapor plays an important role in many aspects of the climate system, by affecting radiation, cloud formation, atmospheric chemistry and dynamics. Even the low stratospheric water vapor content provides an important climate feedback, but current climate models show a substantial moist bias in the lowermost stratosphere. Here we report crucial sensitivity of the atmospheric circulation in the stratosphere and troposphere to the abundance of water vapor in the lowermost stratosphere. We show from a mechanistic climate model experiment and inter-model variability that lowermost stratospheric water vapor decreases local temperatures, and thereby causes an upward and poleward shift of subtropical jets, a strengthening of the stratospheric circulation, a poleward shift of the tropospheric eddy-driven jet and regional climate impacts. The mechanistic model experiment in combination with atmospheric observations further shows that the prevailing moist bias in current models is likely caused by the transport scheme, and can be alleviated by employing a less diffusive Lagrangian scheme. The related effects on atmospheric circulation are of similar magnitude as climate change effects. Hence, lowermost stratospheric water vapor exerts a first order effect on atmospheric circulation and improving its representation in models offers promising prospects for future research.

Simulated stratospheric temperatures over the period 1979–2016 in models from the Chemistry‐Climate Model Initiative are compared with recently updated and extended satellite data sets. The multimodel mean global temperature trends over 1979–2005 are −0.88 ± 0.23, −0.70 ± 0.16, and −0.50 ± 0.12 K/decade for the Stratospheric Sounding Unit (SSU) channels 3 (~40–50 km), 2 (~35–45 km), and 1 (~25–35 km), respectively (with 95% confidence intervals). These are within the uncertainty bounds of the observed temperature trends from two reprocessed SSU data sets. In the lower stratosphere, the multimodel mean trend in global temperature for the Microwave Sounding Unit channel 4 (~13–22 km) is −0.25 ± 0.12 K/decade over 1979–2005, consistent with observed estimates from three versions of this satellite record. The models and an extended satellite data set comprised of SSU with the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit‐A show weaker global stratospheric cooling over 1998–2016 compared to the period of intensive ozone depletion (1979–1997). This is due to the reduction in ozone‐induced cooling from the slowdown of ozone trends and the onset of ozone recovery since the late 1990s. In summary, the results show much better consistency between simulated and satellite‐observed stratospheric temperature trends than was reported by Thompson et al. (2012, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11579) for the previous versions of the SSU record and chemistry‐climate models. The improved agreement mainly comes from updates to the satellite records; the range of stratospheric temperature trends over 1979–2005 simulated in Chemistry‐Climate Model Initiative models is comparable to the previous generation of chemistry‐climate models.

Ozone fields simulated for the first phase of the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI-1) will be used as forcing data in the 6th Coupled Model Intercomparison Project. Here we assess, using reference and sensitivity simulations produced for CCMI-1, the suitability of CCMI-1 model results for this process, investigating the degree of consistency amongst models regarding their responses to variations in individual forcings. We consider the influences of methane, nitrous oxide, a combination of chlorinated or brominated ozone-depleting substances, and a combination of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. We find varying degrees of consistency in the models' responses in ozone to these individual forcings, including some considerable disagreement. In particular, the response of total-column ozone to these forcings is less consistent across the multi-model ensemble than profile comparisons. We analyse how stratospheric age of air, a commonly used diagnostic of stratospheric transport, responds to the forcings. For this diagnostic we find some salient differences in model behaviour, which may explain some of the findings for ozone. The findings imply that the ozone fields derived from CCMI-1 are subject to considerable uncertainties regarding the impacts of these anthropogenic forcings. We offer some thoughts on how to best approach the problem of generating a consensus ozone database from a multi-model ensemble such as CCMI-1.

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 the 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 and 2.6 years. We show that these differences are related to large differences in vertical transport among the simulations, 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, most likely 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.