Tr azomoza ic comparison in the utls
Download
1 / 16

TR AZOMOZA IC Comparison in the UTLS - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 105 Views
  • Uploaded on

TR AZOMOZA IC Comparison in the UTLS. Andreas Volz-Thomas and Martin G. Schultz. Uncertainties in the Global Tropospheric Ozone Budget. Objectives. Analyse observed and simulated trace gas concentrations relative to the tropopause

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'TR AZOMOZA IC Comparison in the UTLS' - holt


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
Tr azomoza ic comparison in the utls

TRAZOMOZAICComparison in the UTLS

Andreas Volz-Thomas

and Martin G. Schultz


Uncertainties in the global tropospheric ozone budget
Uncertainties in the GlobalTropospheric Ozone Budget


Objectives
Objectives

  • Analyse observed and simulated trace gas concentrations relative to the tropopause

  • Analyse observed and simulated variability: seasonal pattern and interannual variability

  • Focus on Northern Mid-latitudes

    AIM:

  • identify model errors and the underlying cause (transport or chemistry?)

  • identify the bias in the MOZAIC data


Data selection for mozart
Data selection for MOZART

  • Simulations 1993-1998, 6-hourly „instantaneous“ values (20min time step)

  • European MOZAIC airports and surrounding columns (1.8° resolution); duplicate boxes removed

  • Latitude range 43°N-60°N (ozone similar within ±5 ppb)

  • Model results selected on model levels relative totropopause (dT/dz<2k/km)


Data selection for mozaic
Data selection for MOZAIC

O3: 8/94–6/03 (five A-340),

NOy and CO since 2001.

TP selection: 2 pvu

Level thickness from MOZART

TP: (p(PV=2) - 15 hPa) > p > (p(PV=2) - 15 hPa)

T+1 (LS): (p(PV=2) - 15 hPa) > p > (p(PV=2) - 45 hPa)

T-1 (UT): (p(PV=2) + 45 hPa) > p > (p(PV=2) + 15 hPa)


Results ozone
Results: Ozone

MOZART

MOZAIC


Sesonal variation of ozone

LS: ca. 100 ppb

TP: ca. 100 ppb

UT: ca. 50 ppb

Sesonal Variation of Ozone

MOZAIC

MOZART



Results noy
Results: NOy

MOZART

MOZAIC






Mozart with sampling bias of mozaic
MOZART with Sampling Bias of MOZAIC:

UT: 6+-6 ppb

TP: 19+-10 ppb

LS: 32+-14 ppb


Conclusions
Conclusions

  • MOZART reproduces the seasonal pattern of ozone well.

  • Some features of interannual variability are captured, but several features are missing: emissions (e.g. 1998), varying stratospheric ozone as main explanation.

  • It has a bias of about +50 ppb in UT and +100 ppb in LS

  • The sampling bias in MOZAIC (6 ppb in UT and 32 ppb in LS) explains about 20-30 % of the discrepancy.

  • The seasonal cycle of NOy in LS is anticorrelated with observations (erroneous strat. climatology!) and has a weaker seasonal amplitude. Wrong NOy/O3 ratio in LS.

  • Hypothesis: STE too weak(!) in MOZART 2, balanced by LS ozone bias. Chemistry also too weak?


Outlook
Outlook

  • Tests with "better" NOy climatology and lower O3 in LS

  • Test for TP selection (use PV for MOZART as well)

  • Look at MOZAIC CO as well

  • Same analysis for other areas

  • ...