Supplement to CAM-chem: description and evaluation of interactive atmospheric chemistry in the Community Earth System Model

Transcription

1 Manuscript prepared for J. Name with version 2.2 of the L A T E X class copernicus discussions.cls. Date: 19 January 212 Supplement to CAM-chem: description and evaluation of interactive atmospheric chemistry in the Community Earth System Model Jean-François Lamarque 1, L. K. Emmons 1, P. G. Hess 2, D. E. Kinnison 1, S. Tilmes 1, F. Vitt 1, C. L. Heald 3, E. A. Holland 1, P. H. Lauritzen 1, J. Neu 4, J. J. Orlando 1, P. J. Rasch 5, and G. K. Tyndall 1 1 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA 2 Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA 3 Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA 4 Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, USA 5 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA Correspondence to: J.-F. Lamarque (lamar@ucar.edu) 1

2 Abstract In this supplement, we provide additional figures to discuss: 1) regional aggregation of ozone sondes (Figure S1), 2) comparison with ozone sondes (profiles, Figure S2 and and seasonal cycles, Figure S3), 3) comparison with the aircraft observations climatology of Emmons et al. (2) (Figures S4), and 4) tropospheric OH distribution with the Spivakovsky climatology (Spivakovsky et al., 2) using the Lawrence et al. (21) diagnostic approach (Figure S5). 1 Introduction 2 Conclusions References Emmons, L. K., D. A. Hauglustaine, J.-F. Müller, M. A. Carroll, G. P. Brasseur, D. Brunner, J. Staehelin, V. Thouret, and A. Marenco: Data composites of airborne observations of tropospheric ozone and its precursors, J. Geophys. Res., 15, 2,497 2,538, 2. Lawrence, M., Jöckel, P., and von Kuhlmann, R.: What does the global mean OH concentration tell us?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 1, 3749, 21. Spivakovsky, C. M., et al.: Three-dimensional climatological distribution of troposphericoh: Update and evaluation, J. Geophys. Res., 15, , 2. 2

3 Hilo Churchill Edmonton Goose_bay Boulder Wallops_Island Huntsville 9 Eureka Alert Resolute Ny_Alesund Scoresbysund 6 3 Lerwick Legionowo Lindenberg Debilt Uccle Praha Madrid Payerne Hohenpeissenberg Sapporo Tateno Kagoshima Naha Hongkong 135 9Sancristobal Paramaribo Nairobi Natal Ascension Watukosek NH polar East NH polar West Canada US West Europe Japan Tropics SH mid lat SH polar Samoa 3 Reunion Fiji 6 Marambio Neumayer Syowa Macquarie Broadmeadows Lauder 9 Fig. S1. Regional aggregation of ozonesondes. ilmes/idl/o3des/haloe_intern_set_plot.pro Sun Jul 24 12:18:5 211 LON_LAT/o3sondes_lon_lat_select.ps 3

4 NH Polar West NH Polar West NH Polar West NH Polar West NH Polar East NH Polar East NH Polar East NH Polar East Canada Canada Canada Canada Fig. S2. Regionally-aggregated (see Figure S2 for definition) median ozonesonde profiles for each season (winter, left column; spring, second column; summer, third column, fall; right column). In each panel, the bias with respect to the observation median is shown as relative difference. 4

5 West Europe West Europe West Europe West Europe North America North America North America North America Japan Japan Japan Japan Fig. S2. Continued. Tropics Tropics Tropics Tropics SH Midlat SH Midlat SH Midlat SH Midlat SH Polar SH Polar SH Polar SH Polar Fig. S2. Continued 5

6 NH Polar West Canada NH Polar East hPa hPa hPa Fig. S3. Comparison of the mean seasonal cycle for regionally-aggregated stations. Observations and model simulations cover , except for the GEOS5 simulation which starts in 24. 6

7 West Europe North America Japan hPa hPa hPa Fig. S3. Continued. 7

8 Tropics hpa SH Midlat SH Polar hPa hPa hPa Fig. S3. Continued 8

9 MERRA GEOS5 Fig. S4a. Comparison of specified-dynamics simulations with INTEX-A Central US for selected aircraft observations. All flights in the considered period are aggregated and variability is shown as horizontal line. 9

10 MERRA GEOS5 Fig. S4b. Same as Fig. S4a but for INTEX-A Eastern US. 1

11 MERRA GEOS5 Fig. S4c. Same as Fig. S4a but for INTEX-B Alaska observations.. 11

12 MERRA GEOS5 Fig. S4d. Same as Fig. S4a but for INTEX-B Hawaii observations.. 12

13 OH Burden MERRA 28 OH Burden GEOS-5 28 [1 6 mol/cm 3 ] [1 6 mol/cm 3 ] hPa 75hPa Surface 9S 3S 3N 9N Surface 9S 3S 3N 9N OH Burden online 28 OH Burden Spivakovsky [1 6 mol/cm 3 ] [1 6 mol/cm 3 ] hPa hPa Surface 9S 3S 3N 9N Surface 9S 3S 3N 9N Fig. S5. OH burden in all simulations and in Spivakovsky et al. (2) dataset, plotted using the recommended approach of methane-reaction weighting in Lawrence et al. (21). 13