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.

The Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE) was conducted from 27 September through 22 October 2004 over the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility (ACRF) on the North Slope of Alaska. The primary objectives were to collect a dataset suitable to study interactions between microphysics, dynamics, and radiative transfer in mixed-phase Arctic clouds, and to develop/evaluate cloud property retrievals from surface-and satellite-based remote sensing instruments. Observations taken during the 1977/98 Surface Heat and Energy Budget of the Arctic (SHEBA) experiment revealed that Arctic clouds frequently consist of one (or more) liquid layers precipitating ice. M-PACE sought to investigate the physical processes of these clouds by utilizing two aircraft (an in situ aircraft to characterize the microphysical properties of the clouds and a remote sensing aircraft to constraint the upwelling radiation) over the ACRF site on the North Slope of Alaska. The measureme... The Mixed-Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment (M-PACE) was conducted from 27 September through 22 October 2004 over the Department of Energy's Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility (ACRF) on the North Slope of Alaska. The primary objectives were to collect a dataset suitable to study interactions between microphysics, dynamics, and radiative transfer in mixed-phase Arctic clouds, and to develop/evaluate cloud property retrievals from surface-and satellite-based remote sensing instruments. Observations taken during the 1977/98 Surface Heat and Energy Budget of the Arctic (SHEBA) experiment revealed that Arctic clouds frequently consist of one (or more) liquid layers precipitating ice. M-PACE sought to investigate the physical processes of these clouds by utilizing two aircraft (an in situ aircraft to characterize the microphysical properties of the clouds and a remote sensing aircraft to constraint the upwelling radiation) over the ACRF site on the North Slope of Alaska. The measureme...

Weather and climate models are challenged by uncertainties and biases in simulating Southern Ocean (SO) radiative fluxes that trace to a poor understanding of cloud, aerosol, precipitation, and radiative processes, and their interactions. Projects between 2016 and 2018 used in situ probes, radar, lidar, and other instruments to make comprehensive measurements of thermodynamics, surface radiation, cloud, precipitation, aerosol, cloud condensation nuclei (CCN), and ice nucleating particles over the SO cold waters, and in ubiquitous liquid and mixed-phase clouds common to this pristine environment. Data including soundings were collected from the NSF–NCAR G-V aircraft flying north–south gradients south of Tasmania, at Macquarie Island, and on the R/V Investigator and RSV Aurora Australis. Synergistically these data characterize boundary layer and free troposphere environmental properties, and represent the most comprehensive data of this type available south of the oceanic polar front, in the cold sector of SO cyclones, and across seasons. Results show largely pristine environments with numerous small and few large aerosols above cloud, suggesting new particle formation and limited long-range transport from continents, high variability in CCN and cloud droplet concentrations, and ubiquitous supercooled water in thin, multilayered clouds, often with small-scale generating cells near cloud top. These observations demonstrate how cloud properties depend on aerosols while highlighting the importance of dynamics and turbulence that likely drive heterogeneity of cloud phase. Satellite retrievals confirmed low clouds were responsible for radiation biases. The combination of models and observations is examining how aerosols and meteorology couple to control SO water and energy budgets.

>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.

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.