Robust effects of springtime Arctic ozone depletion on surface climate

Friedel, Marina; Chiodo, Gabriel; Stenke, Andrea; Domeisen, Daniela I. V.; Fueglistaler, S.; Anet, Julien; Peter, Thomas

doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-496081/v1

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 60 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Years with a strong Arctic polar vortex and associated significant ozone depletion have been linked to widespread climate anomalies across the Northern Hemisphere [16]. As predicted by this study, the exceptionally large ozone depletion that occurred in March-April 2020 [1,17,18] affected springtime weather in the Northern Hemisphere.…”

Section: Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Depletion In 2020 Contributed To ...supporting

confidence: 56%

Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021

Barnes

Robson

Neale

et al. 2022

Photochem Photobiol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Environmental Effects Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol under the United Nations Environment Programme evaluates effects on the environment and human health that arise from changes in the stratospheric ozone layer and concomitant variations in ultraviolet (UV) radiation at the Earth’s surface. The current update is based on scientific advances that have accumulated since our last assessment (Photochem and Photobiol Sci 20(1):1–67, 2021). We also discuss how climate change affects stratospheric ozone depletion and ultraviolet radiation, and how stratospheric ozone depletion affects climate change. The resulting interlinking effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and climate change are assessed in terms of air quality, carbon sinks, ecosystems, human health, and natural and synthetic materials. We further highlight potential impacts on the biosphere from extreme climate events that are occurring with increasing frequency as a consequence of climate change. These and other interactive effects are examined with respect to the benefits that the Montreal Protocol and its Amendments are providing to life on Earth by controlling the production of various substances that contribute to both stratospheric ozone depletion and climate change.

show abstract

Section: Unprecedented Arctic Ozone Depletion In 2020 Contributed To ...supporting

confidence: 56%

Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021

Barnes

Robson

Neale

et al. 2022

Photochem Photobiol Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, large ozone depletion does tend to be followed by anomalous tropospheric weather, i.e. an anomalously strong NAM (Ivy et al, 2017;Friedel et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric dynamics in chemistry versus no-chemistry climate models

Morgenstern¹,

Kinnison²,

Mills

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using nine chemistry-climate and eight associated no-chemistry models, we investigate the persistence and timing of cold episodes occurring in the Arctic and Antarctic stratosphere during the period 1980-2014. We find systematic differences in behavior between members of these model pairs. In a first group of chemistry models whose dynamical configurations mirror their no-chemistry counterparts, we find an increased persistence of such cold polar vortices, such that these cold episodes both start earlier and last longer, relative to the times of occurrence of the lowest temperatures. Also the date of occurrence of the lowest temperatures, both in the Arctic and the Antarctic, is delayed by 1-3 weeks in chemistry models, versus their no-chemistry counterparts. This behavior exacerbates a widespread problem occurring in most or all models, a delayed occurrence, in the median, of the most anomalously cold day during such cold winters. In a second group of model pairs there are differences beyond just ozone chemistry. In particular, here the chemistry models feature more levels in the stratosphere, a raised model top, and differences in non-orographic gravity wave drag versus their no-chemistry counterparts. Such additional dynamical differences can completely mask the above influence of ozone chemistry. The results point towards a need to retune chemistry-climate models versus their no-chemistry counterparts.

show abstract

“…The SWOOSH ozone dataset can be downloaded using the following link: https://csl.noaa.gov/groups/csl8/swoosh/ (Davis et al, 2016). Data for WACCM and SOCOL-MPIOM RCP8.5 simulations are found at https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000627740 (Friedel et al, 2023a). The WACCM and SOCOL-MPIOM time-slice simulations for the year 2075 can be found at https://doi.org/10.3929/ethz-b-000627743 (Friedel et al, 2023b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Weakening of springtime Arctic ozone depletion with climate change

Friedel,

Chiodo,

Sukhodolov

et al. 2023

Atmos. Chem. Phys.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In the Arctic stratosphere, the combination of chemical ozone depletion by halogenated ozone-depleting substances (hODSs) and dynamic fluctuations can lead to severe ozone minima. These Arctic ozone minima are of great societal concern due to their health and climate impacts. Owing to the success of the Montreal Protocol, hODSs in the stratosphere are gradually declining, resulting in a recovery of the ozone layer. On the other hand, continued greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions cool the stratosphere, possibly enhancing the formation of polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) and, thus, enabling more efficient chemical ozone destruction. Other processes, such as the acceleration of the Brewer–Dobson circulation, also affect stratospheric temperatures, further complicating the picture. Therefore, it is currently unclear whether major Arctic ozone minima will still occur at the end of the 21st century despite decreasing hODSs. We have examined this question for different emission pathways using simulations conducted within the Chemistry-Climate Model Initiative (CCMI-1 and CCMI-2022) and found large differences in the models' ability to simulate the magnitude of ozone minima in the present-day climate. Models with a generally too-cold polar stratosphere (cold bias) produce pronounced ozone minima under present-day climate conditions because they simulate more PSCs and, thus, high concentrations of active chlorine species (ClOx). These models predict the largest decrease in ozone minima in the future. Conversely, models with a warm polar stratosphere (warm bias) have the smallest sensitivity of ozone minima to future changes in hODS and GHG concentrations. As a result, the scatter among models in terms of the magnitude of Arctic spring ozone minima will decrease in the future. Overall, these results suggest that Arctic ozone minima will become weaker over the next decades, largely due to the decline in hODS abundances. We note that none of the models analysed here project a notable increase of ozone minima in the future. Stratospheric cooling caused by increasing GHG concentrations is expected to play a secondary role as its effect in the Arctic stratosphere is weakened by opposing radiative and dynamical mechanisms.

show abstract

Robust effects of springtime Arctic ozone depletion on surface climate

Cited by 6 publications

References 60 publications

Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021

Environmental effects of stratospheric ozone depletion, UV radiation, and interactions with climate change: UNEP Environmental Effects Assessment Panel, Update 2021

Comparison of Arctic and Antarctic stratospheric dynamics in chemistry versus no-chemistry climate models

Weakening of springtime Arctic ozone depletion with climate change

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About