A. J. G. Baumgaertner
Max Planck Society
Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by A. J. G. Baumgaertner.
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2010
Seok-Woo Son; Edwin P. Gerber; Judith Perlwitz; Lorenzo M. Polvani; Nathan P. Gillett; Kyong-Hwan Seo; Veronika Eyring; Theodore G. Shepherd; Darryn W. Waugh; Hideharu Akiyoshi; J. Austin; A. J. G. Baumgaertner; Slimane Bekki; Peter Braesicke; C. Brühl; Neal Butchart; M. P. Chipperfield; David Cugnet; Martin Dameris; S. Dhomse; S. M. Frith; Hella Garny; Rolando R. Garcia; Steven C. Hardiman; Patrick Jöckel; Jean-Francois Lamarque; E. Mancini; Marion Marchand; M. Michou; Tetsu Nakamura
The impact of stratospheric ozone on the tropospheric general circulation of the Southern Hemisphere (SH) is examined with a set of chemistry-climate models participating in the Stratospheric Processes and their Role in Climate (SPARC)/Chemistry-Climate Model Validation project phase 2 (CCMVal-2). Model integrations of both the past and future climates reveal the crucial role of stratospheric ozone in driving SH circulation change: stronger ozone depletion in late spring generally leads to greater poleward displacement and intensification of the tropospheric midlatitude jet, and greater expansion of the SH Hadley cell in the summer. These circulation changes are systematic as poleward displacement of the jet is typically accompanied by intensification of the jet and expansion of the Hadley cell. Overall results are compared with coupled models participating in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report (IPCC AR4), and possible mechanisms are discussed. While the tropospheric circulation response appears quasi-linearly related to stratospheric ozone changes, the quantitative response to a given forcing varies considerably from one model to another. This scatter partly results from differences in model climatology. It is shown that poleward intensification of the westerly jet is generally stronger in models whose climatological jet is biased toward lower latitudes. This result is discussed in the context of quasi-geostrophic zonal mean dynamics.
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2010
Olaf Morgenstern; Marco A. Giorgetta; Kiyotaka Shibata; Veronika Eyring; Darryn W. Waugh; Theodore G. Shepherd; Hideharu Akiyoshi; J. Austin; A. J. G. Baumgaertner; Slimane Bekki; Peter Braesicke; C. Brühl; M. P. Chipperfield; David Cugnet; Martin Dameris; S. Dhomse; S. M. Frith; Hella Garny; Andrew Gettelman; Steven C. Hardiman; M. I. Hegglin; Patrick Jöckel; Douglas E. Kinnison; Jean-Francois Lamarque; E. Mancini; Elisa Manzini; Marion Marchand; M. Michou; Tetsu Nakamura; J. E. Nielsen
The goal of the Chemistry-Climate Model Validation (CCMVal) activity is to improve understanding of chemistry-climate models (CCMs) through process-oriented evaluation and to provide reliable projections of stratospheric ozone and its impact on climate. An appreciation of the details of model formulations is essential for understanding how models respond to the changing external forcings of greenhouse gases and ozone-depleting substances, and hence for understanding the ozone and climate forecasts produced by the models participating in this activity. Here we introduce and review the models used for the second round (CCMVal-2) of this intercomparison, regarding the implementation of chemical, transport, radiative, and dynamical processes in these models. In particular, we review the advantages and problems associated with approaches used to model processes of relevance to stratospheric dynamics and chemistry. Furthermore, we state the definitions of the reference simulations performed, and describe the forcing data used in these simulations. We identify some developments in chemistry-climate modeling that make models more physically based or more comprehensive, including the introduction of an interactive ocean, online photolysis, troposphere-stratosphere chemistry, and non-orographic gravity-wave deposition as linked to tropospheric convection. The relatively new developments indicate that stratospheric CCM modeling is becoming more consistent with our physically based understanding of the atmosphere.
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2010
M. I. Hegglin; Andrew Gettelman; P. Hoor; R. Krichevsky; G. L. Manney; Laura L. Pan; Say-Jin Son; G. P. Stiller; Simone Tilmes; Kaley A. Walker; Veronika Eyring; Theodore G. Shepherd; Darryn W. Waugh; Hideharu Akiyoshi; Juan A. Añel; J. Austin; A. J. G. Baumgaertner; Slimane Bekki; Peter Braesicke; C. Brühl; Neal Butchart; M. P. Chipperfield; Martin Dameris; S. Dhomse; S. M. Frith; Hella Garny; Steven C. Hardiman; Patrick Jöckel; Douglas E. Kinnison; Jean-Francois Lamarque
A multimodel assessment of the performance of chemistry-climate models (CCMs) in the extratropical upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS) is conducted for the first time. Process-oriented diagnostics are used to validate dynamical and transport characteristics of 18 CCMs using meteorological analyses and aircraft and satellite observations. The main dynamical and chemical climatological characteristics of the extratropical UTLS are generally well represented by the models, despite the limited horizontal and vertical resolution. The seasonal cycle of lowermost stratospheric mass is realistic, however with a wide spread in its mean value. A tropopause inversion layer is present in most models, although the maximum in static stability is located too high above the tropopause and is somewhat too weak, as expected from limited model resolution. Similar comments apply to the extratropical tropopause transition layer. The seasonality in lower stratospheric chemical tracers is consistent with the seasonality in the Brewer-Dobson circulation. Both vertical and meridional tracer gradients are of similar strength to those found in observations. Models that perform less well tend to use a semi-Lagrangian transport scheme and/or have a very low resolution. Two models, and the multimodel mean, score consistently well on all diagnostics, while seven other models score well on all diagnostics except the seasonal cycle of water vapor. Only four of the models are consistently below average. The lack of tropospheric chemistry in most models limits their evaluation in the upper troposphere. Finally, the UTLS is relatively sparsely sampled by observations, limiting our ability to quantitatively evaluate many aspects of model performance.
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2010
John Austin; Hamish Struthers; J. F. Scinocca; David A. Plummer; Hideharu Akiyoshi; A. J. G. Baumgaertner; Slimane Bekki; G. E. Bodeker; Peter Braesicke; C. Brühl; Neal Butchart; M. P. Chipperfield; David Cugnet; Martin Dameris; S. Dhomse; S. M. Frith; Hella Garny; Andrew Gettelman; Steven C. Hardiman; Patrick Jöckel; Douglas E. Kinnison; Anne Kubin; Jean-Francois Lamarque; Ulrike Langematz; E. Mancini; Marion Marchand; M. Michou; Olaf Morgenstern; Tetsu Nakamura; J. E. Nielsen
Coupled chemistry-climate model simulations covering the recent past and continuing throughout the 21st century have been completed with a range of different models. Common forcings are used for the halogen amounts and greenhouse gas concentrations, as expected under the Montreal Protocol (with amendments) and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change A1b Scenario. The simulations of the Antarctic ozone hole are compared using commonly used diagnostics: the minimum ozone, the maximum area of ozone below 220 DU, and the ozone mass deficit below 220 DU. Despite the fact that the processes responsible for ozone depletion are reasonably well understood, a wide range of results is obtained. Comparisons with observations indicate that one of the reasons for the model underprediction in ozone hole area is the tendency for models to underpredict, by up to 35%, the area of low temperatures responsible for polar stratospheric cloud formation. Models also typically have species gradients that are too weak at the edge of the polar vortex, suggesting that there is too much mixing of air across the vortex edge. Other models show a high bias in total column ozone which restricts the size of the ozone hole (defined by a 220 DU threshold). The results of those models which agree best with observations are examined in more detail. For several models the ozone hole does not disappear this century but a small ozone hole of up to three million square kilometers continues to occur in most springs even after 2070.
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2011
Steven C. Hardiman; Neal Butchart; Andrew Charlton-Perez; Tiffany A. Shaw; Hideharu Akiyoshi; A. J. G. Baumgaertner; Slimane Bekki; Peter Braesicke; M. P. Chipperfield; Martin Dameris; Rolando R. Garcia; M. Michou; Steven Pawson; E. Rozanov; Kiyotaka Shibata
The final warming of the stratospheric polar vortex at the end of northern hemisphere winter is examined in ECMWF ERA-Interim reanalysis data and an ensemble of chemistry climate models, using 20 years of data from each. In some years the final warming is found to occur first in the mid-stratosphere, and in others to occur first in the upper stratosphere. The strength of the winter stratospheric polar vortex, refraction of planetary waves, and the altitudes at which the planetary waves break in the northern extratropics lead to this difference in the vertical profile of the final warming. Years in which the final warming occurs first in the mid-stratosphere show, on average, a more negative NAO pattern in April mean sea level pressure than years in which the warming occurs first in the upper stratosphere. Thus, in the northern hemisphere, additional predictive skill of tropospheric climate in April can be gained from a knowledge of the vertical profile of the stratospheric final warming.
Geoscientific Model Development | 2010
Patrick Jöckel; Astrid Kerkweg; Andrea Pozzer; R. Sander; H. Tost; Hella Riede; A. J. G. Baumgaertner; Sergey Gromov; Bastian Kern
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2011
Neal Butchart; Andrew Charlton-Perez; Irene Cionni; Steven C. Hardiman; Peter H. Haynes; Kirstin Krüger; Paul J. Kushner; Paul A. Newman; Scott M. Osprey; Judith Perlwitz; Michael Sigmond; Lei Wang; Hideharu Akiyoshi; J. Austin; Slimane Bekki; A. J. G. Baumgaertner; Peter Braesicke; C. Brühl; M. P. Chipperfield; Martin Dameris; S. Dhomse; Veronika Eyring; Rolando R. Garcia; Hella Garny; Patrick Jöckel; Jean-Francois Lamarque; Marion Marchand; M. Michou; Olaf Morgenstern; Tetsu Nakamura
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics | 2011
B. Funke; A. J. G. Baumgaertner; M. Calisto; T. Egorova; Charles H. Jackman; Jens Kieser; Alexei A. Krivolutsky; M. López-Puertas; Daniel R. Marsh; T. Reddmann; E. Rozanov; S.M. Salmi; M. Sinnhuber; G. P. Stiller; Pekka T. Verronen; Stefan Versick; T. von Clarmann; T.Y. Vyushkova; Nadine Wieters; J. M. Wissing
Journal of Geophysical Research | 2007
A. J. G. Baumgaertner; A. J. McDonald
Geoscientific Model Development | 2011
R. Sander; A. J. G. Baumgaertner; Sergey Gromov; H. Harder; Patrick Jöckel; Astrid Kerkweg; Dagmar Kubistin; E. Regelin; Hella Riede; Adrian Sandu; D. Taraborrelli; H. Tost; Zhouqing Xie