Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Recent Lower Stratospheric Ozone Trends in CCMI...

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Recent Lower Stratospheric Ozone Trends in CCMI‐2022 Models: Role of Natural Variability and Transport

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineJournal articlepeer-review

E-pub ahead of print
  • Samuel Benito‐Barca
  • Marta Abalos
  • Natalia Calvo
  • Hella Garny
  • Thomas Birner
  • Nathan Luke Abraham
  • Hideharu Akiyoshi
  • Fraser Dennison
  • Patrick Jöckel
  • Bèatrice Josse
  • James Keeble
  • Doug Kinnison
  • Marion Marchand
  • Olaf Morgenstern
  • David Plummer
  • Eugene Rozanov
  • Sarah Strode
  • Timofei Sukhodolov
  • Shingo Watanabe
  • Yousuke Yamashita
Close
Article numbere2024JD042412
<mark>Journal publication date</mark>16/05/2025
<mark>Journal</mark>Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
Issue number9
Volume130
Publication StatusE-pub ahead of print
Early online date9/05/25
<mark>Original language</mark>English

Abstract

Lower stratospheric ozone between 60°S and 60°N has continued to decline since 1998, despite the reduction of ozone‐depleting substances following the Montreal Protocol. Previous studies have shown that, while chemistry‐climate models reproduce the negative ozone trend in the tropical lower stratosphere as a response to increased upwelling, they fail to capture the ozone decline in northern midlatitudes. This study revisits recent lower stratospheric ozone trends over the period 1998–2018 using two types of simulations from the new Chemistry Climate Model Initiative 2022 (CCMI‐2022): REF‐D1, with observed sea surface temperatures, and REF‐D2, with simulated ocean. The observed negative trend in midlatitudes falls within the range of model trends, especially when considering simulations with observed boundary conditions. There is a large spread in the simulated midlatitudes ozone trends, with some simulations showing positive and others negative trends. A multiple linear regression analysis shows that the spread in the trends is not explained by the different linear response to external forcings (solar cycle, global warming, and ozone‐depleting substances) or to the main variability modes (El Niño‐Southern Oscillation and the quasi‐biennial oscillation) but is instead attributed to internal atmospheric variability. Moreover, the fact that some models show very different trends across members, while other models show similar trends in all members, suggests fundamental differences in the representation of the internal variability of ozone transport across models. Indeed, we report substantial intermodel differences in the ozone‐transport connection on interannual timescales and we find that ozone trends are closely coupled to transport trends.