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

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.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres
Published
2025-05-09
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1029/2024jd042412
Citations
3
Primary Topic
Atmospheric Ozone and Climate
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.90

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

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

D. E. Kinnison, Olaf Morgenstern, Fraser Dennison, Samuel Benito‐Barca et al.
3 citations
Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres
Atmospheric Ozone and Climate
3.90
article

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

D. E. Kinnison, Olaf Morgenstern, Fraser Dennison, Samuel Benito‐Barca, Timofei Sukhodolov, Hideharu Akiyoshi, James M. Keeble, Béatrice Josse, Marion Marchand, David A. Plummer, Eugene Rozanov, Natalia Calvo, Patrick Jöckel, Sarah A. Strode, Thomas Birner, Y. Yamashita, Hella Garny, Shingo Watanabe, Nathan Luke Abraham, Marta Ábalos
article en
3 citations

Abstract

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.

Journal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresVol. 130(9)
NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US), Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES), Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (AU), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Goddard Space Flight Center (US), Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JP), Environment and Climate Change Canada (CA), Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (ES), The University of Melbourne (AU), Deutscher Wetterdienst (DE), Université Fédérale de Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées (FR), University of Canterbury (NZ), Université de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-Yvelines (FR), National Institute for Environmental Studies (JP), University of Cambridge (GB), Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt e. V. (DLR) (DE), Sorbonne Université (FR), National Centre for Atmospheric Science (GB), Météo-France (FR), Institut Pierre-Simon Laplace (FR), Physikalisch-Meteorologisches Observatorium Davos (CH), Instituto de Geociencias (ES), Laboratoire atmosphères, milieux, observations spatiales (FR), National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NZ), Lancaster University (GB), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE), Morgan State University (US)
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Atmospheric Ozone and Climate
3.90
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.