Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 3 of 3 items for :

  • Author or Editor: T. G. Shepherd x
  • Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society x
  • Refine by Access: Content accessible to me x
Clear All Modify Search
V. Eyring
,
N. R. P. Harris
,
M. Rex
,
T. G. Shepherd
,
D. W. Fahey
,
G. T. Amanatidis
,
J. Austin
,
M. P. Chipperfield
,
M. Dameris
,
P. M. De F. Forster
,
A. Gettelman
,
H. F. Graf
,
T. Nagashima
,
P. A. Newman
,
S. Pawson
,
M. J. Prather
,
J. A. Pyle
,
R. J. Salawitch
,
B. D. Santer
, and
D. W. Waugh

Accurate and reliable predictions and an understanding of future changes in the stratosphere are major aspects of the subject of climate change. Simulating the interaction between chemistry and climate is of particular importance, because continued increases in greenhouse gases and a slow decrease in halogen loading are expected. These both influence the abundance of stratospheric ozone. In recent years a number of coupled chemistry–climate models (CCMs) with different levels of complexity have been developed. They produce a wide range of results concerning the timing and extent of ozone-layer recovery. Interest in reducing this range has created a need to address how the main dynamical, chemical, and physical processes that determine the long-term behavior of ozone are represented in the models and to validate these model processes through comparisons with observations and other models. A set of core validation processes structured around four major topics (transport, dynamics, radiation, and stratospheric chemistry and microphysics) has been developed. Each process is associated with one or more model diagnostics and with relevant datasets that can be used for validation. This approach provides a coherent framework for validating CCMs and can be used as a basis for future assessments. Similar efforts may benefit other modeling communities with a focus on earth science research as their models increase in complexity.

Full access
Antje Weisheimer
,
Laura H. Baker
,
Jochen Bröcker
,
Chaim I. Garfinkel
,
Steven C. Hardiman
,
Dan L. R. Hodson
,
Tim N. Palmer
,
Jon I. Robson
,
Adam A. Scaife
,
James A. Screen
,
Theodore G. Shepherd
,
Doug M. Smith
, and
Rowan T. Sutton
Open access
S. Pawson
,
K. Kodera
,
K. Hamilton
,
T. G. Shepherd
,
S. R. Beagley
,
B. A. Boville
,
J. D. Farrara
,
T. D. A. Fairlie
,
A. Kitoh
,
W. A. Lahoz
,
U. Langematz
,
E. Manzini
,
D. H. Rind
,
A. A. Scaife
,
K. Shibata
,
P. Simon
,
R. Swinbank
,
L. Takacs
,
R. J. Wilson
,
J. A. Al-Saadi
,
M. Amodei
,
M. Chiba
,
L. Coy
,
J. de Grandpré
,
R. S. Eckman
,
M. Fiorino
,
W. L. Grose
,
H. Koide
,
J. N. Koshyk
,
D. Li
,
J. Lerner
,
J. D. Mahlman
,
N. A. McFarlane
,
C. R. Mechoso
,
A. Molod
,
A. O'Neill
,
R. B. Pierce
,
W. J. Randel
,
R. B. Rood
, and
F. Wu

To investigate the effects of the middle atmosphere on climate, the World Climate Research Programme is supporting the project “Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate” (SPARC). A central theme of SPARC, to examine model simulations of the coupled troposphere–middle atmosphere system, is being performed through the initiative called GRIPS (GCM-Reality Intercomparison Project for SPARC). In this paper, an overview of the objectives of GRIPS is given. Initial activities include an assessment of the performance of middle atmosphere climate models, and preliminary results from this evaluation are presented here. It is shown that although all 13 models evaluated represent most major features of the mean atmospheric state, there are deficiencies in the magnitude and location of the features, which cannot easily be traced to the formulation (resolution or the parameterizations included) of the models. Most models show a cold bias in all locations, apart from the tropical tropopause region where they can be either too warm or too cold. The strengths and locations of the major jets are often misrepresented in the models. Looking at three-dimensional fields reveals, for some models, more severe deficiencies in the magnitude and positioning of the dominant structures (such as the Aleutian high in the stratosphere), although undersampling might explain some of these differences from observations. All the models have shortcomings in their simulations of the present-day climate, which might limit the accuracy of predictions of the climate response to ozone change and other anomalous forcing.

Full access