View
219
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Generated using version 3.1 of the official AMS LATEX template
Impact of Antarctic ozone depletion and recovery on Southern1
Hemisphere precipitation, evaporation and extreme changes2
Ariaan Purich and Seok-Woo Son ∗
Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
3
∗Corresponding author address: Seok-Woo Son, Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, McGill
University, 805 Sherbrooke West, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 2K6, Canada.
E-mail: seok-woo.son@mcgill.ca
1
ABSTRACT4
The possible impact of Antarctic ozone depletion and recovery on Southern Hemisphere5
(SH) mean and extreme precipitation and evaporation is examined using multimodel output6
from the Climate Model Intercomparison Project 3 (CMIP3). By grouping models into four7
sets, those with and without ozone depletion in 20th century climate simulations and those8
with and without ozone recovery in 21st century climate simulations, and comparing their9
multimodel-mean trends, it is shown that Antarctic ozone forcings significantly modulate10
extratropical precipitation changes in austral summer. The impact on evaporation trends is11
however, minimal especially in 20th century climate simulations. In general, ozone depletion12
has increased precipitation in high-latitudes and decreased it in mid-latitudes, in agreement13
with the poleward displacement of the westerly jet and associated storm tracks by Antarc-14
tic ozone depletion. Although weaker, the opposite is also true for ozone recovery. These15
precipitation changes are primarily associated with changes in light precipitation (1–10 mm16
day−1). Contributions by very-light precipitation (0.1–1 mm day−1) and moderate-to-heavy17
precipitation (>10 mm day−1) are minor. Likewise, no systematic changes are found in18
extreme precipitation events, although extreme surface wind events are highly sensitive to19
ozone forcings. This result indicates that, while extratropical mean precipitation trends are20
significantly modulated by ozone-induced large-scale circulation changes, extreme precipita-21
tion changes are likely more sensitive to thermodynamic processes near the surface than to22
dynamical processes in the free atmosphere.23
1
1. Introduction24
Southern Hemisphere (SH) climate changes over the last few decades have been exten-25
sively documented in recent studies. They include an expansion of the Hadley cell (Seidel26
et al. 2008; Johanson and Fu 2009), a shift in atmospheric mass from high- to mid-latitudes27
(Thompson and Solomon 2002; Marshall 2003), a poleward displacement of the westerly jet28
and storm tracks (Thompson and Solomon 2002; Marshall 2003; Fyfe 2003), an increase in29
surface wind speeds over the Southern Ocean (Boning et al. 2008), anomalously dry condi-30
tions over southern South America, New Zealand and southern Australia, and anomalously31
wet conditions over much of Australia and South Africa (Gillett et al. 2006). A freshening32
and warming of the Southern Ocean (Wong et al. 1999; Gille 2002; Boning et al. 2008) and33
a significant warming of the Antarctic peninsula (Thompson and Solomon 2002) have also34
been observed. While some of these changes have been attributed to circulation changes35
induced by the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases (Fyfe et al. 1999; Kushner et al.36
2001; Cai et al. 2003), such changes in austral summer have also been influenced by Antarc-37
tic ozone depletion (Thompson and Solomon 2002; Shindell and Schmidt 2004; Arblaster38
and Meehl 2006; Perlwitz et al. 2008; Son et al. 2009, 2010; McLandress et al. 2011; Polvani39
et al. 2011; Kang et al. 2011). It is known that both increasing greenhouse gases, occurring40
year-round, and ozone depletion, which occurs most significantly in late spring and sum-41
mer, have driven SH extratropical circulation changes in a similar way, the cumulative effect42
resulting in more significant tropospheric climate change in austral summer than in other43
seasons. In the future, the effects of these two forcings are however predicted to oppose each44
other (Shindell and Schmidt 2004; Perlwitz et al. 2008; McLandress et al. 2011), as Antarctic45
ozone concentrations are anticipated to increase due to the implementation of the Montreal46
Protocol (Austin et al. 2010).47
While the surface climate impact of increasing greenhouse gases is relatively well un-48
derstood, our understanding of stratospheric ozone-related climate change at the surface,49
especially its mechanisms, is somewhat limited. In particular the impact of stratospheric50
2
ozone changes on the hydrological cycle in the SH is not well understood. A series of recent51
studies have shown that stratospheric ozone depletion has likely enhanced austral-summer52
precipitation changes in the subtropics and high-latitudes but reduced them in mid-latitudes,53
consistent with the poleward displacement of the westerly jet, or equivalently the positive54
trend in the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) index (Son et al. 2009; McLandress et al. 2011;55
Polvani et al. 2011; Kang et al. 2011). Although they are crucial for understanding salinity56
changes in the Southern Ocean, net hydrological changes, including evaporation, are not yet57
well understood. In addition and arguably more importantly, potential changes in extreme58
precipitation events are yet to be investigated. It is known that individual precipitation59
events are likely to get more intense as the climate warms (Emori and Brown 2005; Sun60
et al. 2007; O’Gorman and Schneider 2009). Previous studies suggest that it is predomi-61
nantly thermodynamics that control changes in extratropical extreme precipitation (Emori62
and Brown 2005; O’Gorman and Schneider 2009). Thus, it is questionable whether extreme63
precipitation events will respond to dynamical changes driven by the Antarctic ozone hole.64
The purpose of this study is to bridge the existing gap in understanding the relative65
contributions of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and stratospheric ozone changes66
in forcing changes in the hydrological cycle. Multimodel output from the Climate Model67
Intercomparison Project 3 (CMIP3; Meehl et al. (2007)) are analysed. By grouping models68
into those with prescribed ozone depletion and recovery, and those without it, we show69
that Antarctic ozone forcings significantly affect seasonal-mean precipitation trends in the70
extratropics during austral summer, but play a minimal role in evaporation and extreme71
precipitation trends.72
2. Data and methods73
CMIP3 data from the 20th century climate simulations (20C3m) and 21st century climate74
simulations with the special report on emissions scenarios A1B forcing (A1B) are analysed.75
3
From all available models, the models which archived daily precipitation are first selected.76
For those models, evaporation is calculated from surface latent heat flux as outlined in Yu77
et al. (2008). Each model’s precipitation and evaporation climatologies are then compared78
with Global Precipitation Climatology Project version-2 (GPCP) precipitation (Adler et al.79
2003) and Objectively Analyzed Air-Sea Heat Fluxes version-3 (OAFlux) global ocean evap-80
oration data (Yu et al. 2008). Those models with significant biases1 are discarded and 1981
models are selected for the analyses as described in Table 1.82
All CMIP3 models have prescribed stratospheric ozone concentrations with a seasonal83
cycle. However, not all models have incorporated stratospheric ozone depletion in the latter84
part of the 20th century and recovery in the 21st century, as anthropogenic ozone forcings were85
not mandated in the CMIP3 (Meehl et al. 2007). Ten models prescribed ozone depletion and86
ozone recovery, whilst nine models simply used climatological ozone fields2. As such, models87
are grouped into four sets: those with and without ozone depletion in the 20th century, and88
those with and without ozone recovery in the 21st century. For each group, the multimodel-89
mean climatologies and trends are calculated for the fields of interest (precipitation and90
evaporation) over the 20th and 21st centuries. As in Son et al. (2009), climatologies and91
trends are first calculated for each ensemble member and averaged over all available ensemble92
members of a given model. The ensemble average of each model is interpolated onto a 4◦93
latitude by 4◦ longitude grid and averaged over all available models within a group. Hatching94
is used on trend maps to denote where the multimodel mean trend is greater than or equal95
to one standard deviation of the trends of different models within that group. By comparing96
the multimodel means of each group, the impact of Antarctic ozone forcings on hydrological97
climate changes is systematically examined. Although this approach does not necessarily98
1FGOALS1.0g (IAP, China) is discarded as 20th century precipitation in the high-latitude region is found
to be unreasonably higher than observations and all other models. GISS-ER (NASA, USA) is discarded as
1971–1999 daily precipitation appears to be erroneous across the extent of the SH.2Certain CMIP3 models prescribed ozone depletion in the 20th century but did not prescribe ozone
recovery in the 21st century, however for other reasons, such models were not included in this study.
4
reveal ozone-related surface climate changes, as each group comprises different models, it99
is known that trend differences resulting from different ozone forcings are likely larger than100
those associated with model-dependent internal variabilities (Son et al. 2009).101
Since daily data are archived only for selected decades in the A1B runs, long-term trends102
are estimated in this study using decadal differences. The 20th century change, reflecting the103
impact of ozone depletion, is defined by the difference between 1990–1999 and 1961–1970104
means. Likewise the 21st century change, reflecting the impact of ozone recovery, is defined105
by the difference between 2056–2065 and 1990–1999 means. Since decadal differences are106
qualitatively similar to the linear trends computed from monthly-mean data over 1960–1999107
and 2000–2079 (not shown), they are simply referred to as “trends” in this study. The108
possible changes in extreme precipitation events are examined by decomposing seasonal-109
mean precipitation trends into three regimes (Sun et al. 2007): very-light (0.1–1 mm day−1),110
light (1–10 mm day−1) and moderate-to-heavy (>10 mm day−1) precipitation changes. Five111
extreme precipitation indices are also examined. They are the sum of precipitation on all112
wet days divided by the number of wet days, the sum of rainfall on days exceeding the113
95th percentile threshold as determined for the base period of 1961–1990 (hereafter 95th114
percentile precipitation), the sum of rainfall on days exceeding the 99th percentile threshold115
as determined for the base period of 1961–1990, seasonal maximum one-day precipitation,116
and seasonal maximum five-day consecutive precipitation (ETCCDI/CRD 2009).117
3. Results118
Multimodel-mean trends of austral-summer (DJF) precipitation and evaporation are pre-119
sented in Fig. 1. Only the extratropics, poleward of 30◦S, are shown, as tropical and subtrop-120
ical trends are noisy and largely insignificant. In the 20th century the poleward displacement121
of storm tracks by increasing greenhouse gases causes a dipolar trend in precipitation (Yin122
2005). This is evident in the models without ozone depletion, however trends are only weak.123
5
A similar pattern but with much stronger magnitude is found in the models with prescribed124
ozone depletion, indicating the combined effects of increasing greenhouse gases and ozone125
depletion on extratropical precipitation changes. The opposite is generally true in the 21st126
century: models with prescribed ozone recovery show relatively weaker precipitation trends127
than models with fixed ozone forcing. As shown in previous studies (Son et al. 2009; McLan-128
dress et al. 2011; Polvani et al. 2011), this sensitivity is observed only in austral summer.129
In contrast to the annular-like trends of precipitation, evaporation shows relatively weak130
trends in the extratropics, which lack organisation. The sensitivity of evaporation trends to131
ozone forcings is also weak, although there is a hint that models with ozone depletion have132
a weaker decreasing trend in high-latitude evaporation than those without ozone depletion133
presumably because of the acceleration of surface westerlies by ozone depletion. This result,134
combined with the findings related to precipitation trends, indicates that Antarctic ozone135
forcings modulate long-term trends of surface freshwater flux (or equivalently, precipitation136
minus evaporation) by primarily affecting precipitation trends. Figure 1 (third row) in137
particular suggests that Antarctic ozone depletion has likely contributed to the observed138
freshening of the Southern Ocean (e.g. Boning et al. 2008), but its recovery would have little139
impact on Southern Ocean freshening, as ozone-related precipitation changes in the 21st140
century are partly cancelled by evaporation changes.141
Figure 2 presents the relative contributions of very-light, light and moderate-to-heavy142
precipitation changes to the DJF-mean precipitation changes shown in Fig. 1. It is evident143
that mean precipitation trends are dominated by light precipitation trends in the models144
(second row), the precipitation regime which is somewhat overestimated in the CMIP3 mod-145
els (Dai 2006). Note that, although very-light precipitation events also show significant146
trends, their cumulative impact is very weak (shading interval in the first row is one tenth147
of that in the second row). More importantly, their sensitivity to ozone forcings is exactly148
opposite to those of seasonal-mean precipitation trends (compare the first rows of Fig. 1 and149
Fig. 2). This is somewhat surprising, but similar results, opposite trends between very-light150
6
and light precipitation events, are also found in the precipitation response to anthropogenic151
warming (e.g. Sun et al. 2007). For instance, as shown in the right-most column of Fig. 2,152
very-light and light precipitation trends in the 21st century with fixed ozone but with in-153
creasing greenhouse gases show opposite trends in the high-latitudes. It appears the similar154
excitation of the SAM by both increasing greenhouse gases and varying ozone affects the155
precipitation distribution. The mechanisms for this are however unknown: the response may156
be accounted for in terms of thermodynamic changes by increasing greenhouse gases (i.e. a157
warm atmosphere can hold more moisture, likely causing the probability distribution func-158
tion of precipitation events to shift away from very-light to light precipitation events), but159
is more perplexing in terms of ozone-forced dynamic changes. Further studies are needed.160
The trends in moderate-to-heavy precipitation events (Fig. 2 third row), which are quan-161
titatively similar to 95th percentile precipitation trends (fourth row), are relatively weak.162
Unlike trends in very-light and light precipitation, they show no dipole pattern: trends are163
predominantly positive across the extent of the SH, particularly in the 21st century, reflecting164
more intense and frequent extreme precipitation events with anthropogenic warming. More165
importantly, no notable sensitivity to ozone forcings is observed. Although not shown, a166
lack of sensitivity is also found in the other extreme precipitation indices described in the167
data and methods section. This suggests that Antarctic ozone forcings only play a minimal,168
if any, role in extreme precipitation changes. Here it should be noted that extreme precip-169
itation events are sensitive to model resolution. Comparisons of MIROC3.2 (hires, T106)170
with MIROC3.2 (medres, T42), and of CGCM3.1 (T63) with CGCM3.1 (T47), in fact show171
stronger trends in the higher resolution models (not shown). However, the fact that each172
model group contains models with a variety of resolutions and that multimodel-mean trends173
in extreme precipitation are quantitatively similar between models with time-varying ozone174
and models with fixed ozone, although the former have generally higher resolultion than the175
latter (Table 1), suggests that the conclusion that Antarctic ozone forcings play a minimal176
role in extreme precipitation changes holds.177
7
The above results suggest that Antarctic ozone forcings affect hydrological climate changes178
in the SH extratropics by modifying dynamics that in turn modify light precipitation trends.179
It may be questionable whether results are affected by model groups having different climate180
sensitivities: in fact models with varying ozone are known to have higher climate sensitiv-181
ity to increasing greenhouse gases (Miller et al. 2006). However, that in the 21st century182
models with varying ozone exhibit trends in mean precipitation consistent with ozone re-183
covery, suggests that models with varying ozone are not simply responding more strongly to184
increasing greenhouse gases, as the response to ozone recovery is in the opposite direction.185
Nevertheless, results should be treated with caution, as they are based solely on simple mul-186
timodel averaging. One limitation of multimodel averaging, amongst others, is due to the187
fact that individual models have different climatologies (eg. Barnes and Hartmann 2010).188
For instance, the DJF-mean climatological jet, defined by the maximum westerly wind at189
925 hPa, varies from 43◦S to 56◦S amongst models (not shown). Models with fixed ozone190
forcing generally have a jet in lower latitudes (46.2◦S ± 2.9◦) compared to those with ozone191
depletion (49.8◦S ± 2.7◦) (as expected, the latter is closer to the real atmosphere (50◦S)).192
Since storm tracks are located on the poleward side of the westerly jet, the simple multi-193
model averaging used in this study, which ignores individual models’ bias, could over- or194
underestimate precipitation trends by averaging stormy regions with dry ones.195
Figure 3 shows seasonal-mean precipitation climatology and long-term trends for individ-196
ual models and multimodel means, shifted relative to the climatological jet. Only zonally-197
averaged fields are shown as precipitation trends are largely homogeneous in the zonal di-198
rection (Figs. 1, 2). The CMIP3 models reproduce DJF-mean precipitation reasonably well199
in the high-latitudes (-30–0◦ relative to the jet). However, they generally underestimate it200
in mid-latitudes (0–20◦ relative to the jet) and overestimate it in the subtropics and tropics201
(20–50◦ relative to the jet). Intermodel variation is particularly large in the subtropics and202
tropics, making any influence of ozone forcings difficult to distinguish. In fact, although a203
recent study by Kang et al. (2011) has shown that ozone depletion may have enhanced sub-204
8
tropical precipitation in the SH, no sensitivity of subtropical precipitation trends to ozone205
forcings is found in multimodel-mean trends (second row). A noticeable difference in subtrop-206
ical precipitation trends is only found in the 21st century (second row, right column). This is207
however unlikely to be associated with ozone recovery: it is, instead, thought to be a result208
of the intensification of moderate-to-heavy (fifth row, right column) tropical precipitation,209
caused by anthropogenic warming, amongst models with different tropical climatologies.210
Returning to extratropical precipitation trends, Fig. 3 confirms that ozone depletion211
tends to increase high-latitude precipitation trends but decrease mid-latitude precipitation212
trends by modulating light precipitation events. The role of ozone recovery is the reverse:213
decreasing (increasing) high- (mid-) latitude precipitation trends, relative to greenhouse gas214
induced trends alone. This sensitivity is statistically significant at the 99 % confidence level215
as summarised in Table 2. Note that, while the mid-latitude precipitation trend difference216
in the 20th century is not significant, the decrease in mid-latitude light precipitation by217
ozone depletion is statistically significant. Note also that although the sensitivity of high-218
latitude precipitation to ozone forcings is not significant in the 21st century in Table 2,219
it becomes significant if linear trends of monthly-mean precipitation, which are generally220
stronger than decadal differences, are used. The identical analyses are further performed for221
other seasons and no significant difference in multimodel-mean trends between the models222
with and without time-varying ozone forcings is found.223
4. Discussion224
The multimodel analyses, based on CMIP3 models, show that Antarctic ozone forcings225
significantly affect austral-summer precipitation trends in the SH extratropics. Their effects226
are primarily realised by changes in light precipitation events (1–10 mm day−1), with neg-227
ligible changes in extreme precipitation events attributable to ozone forcings. This lack of228
sensitivity of extreme precipitation events to ozone forcings is somewhat contradictory to the229
9
atmospheric circulation changes by ozone forcings: ozone depletion is known to strengthen230
extratropical westerlies, or equivalently to favour the positive polarity of the SAM (Son et al.231
2008, 2010; McLandress et al. 2011; Polvani et al. 2011). As shown in Fig. 4, trends of both232
seasonal-mean and frequency of occurence of 95th percentile surface westerlies are strength-233
ened by ozone depletion (second row). While mean tropospheric circulation changes are234
consistent with mean precipitation changes, no link is established between extreme events235
(compare first and second rows). In other words, strengthening of the 95th percentile wind236
by ozone depletion does not lead to strengthening of 95th percentile precipitation. This result237
suggests that thermodynamic effects are likely more important than dynamic effects in the238
extratropical extreme precipitation changes as discussed by Emori and Brown (2005) and239
O’Gorman and Schneider (2009). In fact, surface air temperature trends, which control wa-240
ter vapour content in the atmosphere, show a negligible sensitivity to ozone forcings (third241
row).242
As previously stated, the findings of this study are based soley on multimodel averaging243
and thus should be treated with care. Although multimodel averaging can reduce model244
biases, it does not allow direct attribution of SH surface climate changes to Antarctic ozone245
forcings. This approach may also underestimate surface climate responses to ozone forc-246
ings by averaging models with realistic climatologies and trends with those without them.247
More quantitative studies using climate model sensitivity tests (e.g. McLandress et al. 2011;248
Polvani et al. 2011) are needed for better quantifying stratospheric ozone-related hydrological249
climate changes in the SH.250
Acknowledgments.251
We thank Jacques Derome for helpful discussion in the course of this research and the252
anonymous reviewers for helpful comments that improved this manuscript. We also thank253
the Program for Climate Model Diagnosis and Intercomparison (PCMDI) for collecting and254
archiving the IPCC/AR4 model data, the JSC/CLIVAR Working Groups on Coupled Mod-255
10
eling (WGCM) and their Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) and Climate256
Simulation Panel for organising the model data analysis activity, and the IPCC WG1 TSU257
for technical support. The IPCC Data Archive at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory258
is supported by the Office of Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy. This study is funded259
by the Korea Polar Research Institute (KOPRI) grant under project PE 11010. The work260
by A.P. is in part supported by the Global Environmental and Climate Change Centre,261
Montreal, Quebec, Canada.262
11
263
REFERENCES264
Adler, R., et al., 2003: The Version-2 Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP)265
monthly precipitation analysis (1979–present). Journal of Hydrometeorology, 4, 1147–1167.266
Arblaster, J. and G. Meehl, 2006: Contributions of external forcings to Southern Annular267
Mode trends. Journal of Climate, 19, 2896–2905.268
Austin, J., et al., 2010: Decline and recovery of total column ozone using a multi-269
model time series analysis. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, D00M10, doi:10.1029/270
2010JD013857.271
Barnes, E. and D. Hartmann, 2010: Testing a theory for the effect of latitude on the per-272
sistence of eddy-driven jets using CMIP3 simulations. Geophysical Research Letters, 37,273
L15801, doi:10.1029/2010GL044144.274
Boning, C., A. Dispert, M. Visbeck, S. Rintoul, and F. Schwarzkopf, 2008: The response275
of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current to recent climate change. Nature Geoscience, 1,276
864–869, doi:10.1038/ngeo362.277
Cai, W., P. Whetton, and D. Karoly, 2003: The response of the Antarctic Oscillation to278
increasing and stabilized atmospheric CO2. Journal of Climate, 16, 1525–1538.279
Dai, A., 2006: Precipitation characteristics in eighteen coupled climate models. Journal of280
Climate, 19, 4605–4630.281
Emori, S. and S. Brown, 2005: Dynamic and thermodynamic changes in mean and extreme282
precipitation under changed climate. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L17706, doi:10.283
1029/2005GL023272.284
12
ETCCDI/CRD, 2009: Climate change indices: Definitions of the 27 core indices.285
CCl/CLIVAR/JCOMM Expert Team (ET) on Climate Change Detection and Indices,286
available online from: http://cccma.seos.uvic.ca/ETCCDMI.287
Fyfe, J., 2003: Extratropical Southern Hemisphere cyclones: Harbingers of climate change.288
Journal of Climate, 16, 2802–2805.289
Fyfe, J., G. Boer, and G. Flato, 1999: The Arctic and Antarctic Oscillations and their290
projected changes under global warming. Geophysical Research Letters, 26, 1601–1604.291
Gille, S., 2002: Warming of the Southern Ocean Since the 1950s. Science, 295, 1275–1277,292
doi:10.1126/science.1065863.293
Gillett, N., T. Kell, and P. Jones, 2006: Regional climate impacts of the Southern Annular294
Mode. Geophysical Research Letters, 33, L23704, doi:10.1029/2006GL027721.295
Johanson, C. and Q. Fu, 2009: Hadley cell widening: Model simulations versus observations.296
Journal of Climate, 22, 2713–2725, doi:10.1175/2008JCLI2620.1.297
Kang, S., L. Polvani, J. C. Fyfe, and M. Sigmond, 2011: Impact of Polar Ozone Depletion298
on Subtropical Precipitation. Science, in press.299
Kushner, P., I. Held, and T. Delworth, 2001: Southern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation300
response to global warming. Journal of Climate, 14, 2238–2249.301
Marshall, G., 2003: Trends in the Southern Annular Mode from observations and reanalyses.302
Journal of Climate, 16, 4134–4143.303
McLandress, C., T. Shepherd, J. Scinocca, D. Plummer, M. Sigmond, A. Jonsson, and304
M. Reader, 2011: Separating the dynamical effects of climate change and ozone depletion:305
Part 2. Southern Hemisphere troposphere. Journal of Climate, 24, 1850–1868, doi:10.306
1175/2010JCLI3958.1.307
13
Meehl, G. A., C. Covey, T. Delworth, M. Latif, B. McAvaney, J. F. B. Mitchell, R. J.308
Stouffer, and K. E. Taylor, 2007: The WCRP CMIP3 multimodel dataset. Bulletin of the309
American Meteorological Society, 88, 1383–1394.310
Miller, R., G. Schmidt, and D. Shindell, 2006: Forced annular variations in the 20th century311
intergovernmental panel on climate change fourth assessment report models. Journal of312
Geophysical Research, 111, D18101, doi:10.1029/2005JD006323.313
O’Gorman, P. and T. Schneider, 2009: The physical basis for increases in precipitation ex-314
tremes in simulations of 21st-century climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy315
of Science, 106, 14 773–14 777, doi:10.1073/pnas.0907610106.316
Perlwitz, J., S. Pawson, R. Fogt, J. Nielson, and W. Neff, 2008: Impact of stratospheric317
ozone hole recovery on Antarctic climate. Geophysical Research Letters, 35, L08714, doi:318
10.1029/2008GL033317.319
Polvani, L., D. Waugh, G. Correa, and S.-W. Son., 2011: Stratospheric ozone depletion: The320
main driver of 20th century atmospheric changes in the Southern Hemisphere. Journal of321
Climate, 24, 795–812, doi:10.1175/2010JCLI3772.1.322
Randall, D., et al., 2007: Climate models and their evaluation; in Climate Change 2007:323
The Physical Sciences Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment324
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Tech. rep., Intergovernmental325
Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge, United Kingdom. [S. Solomon, D. Qin, M. Manning,326
Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)].327
Seidel, D., Q. Fu, W. Randall, and T. Reichler, 2008: Widening of the tropical belt in a328
changing climate. Nature Geoscience, 1, 21–24, doi:10.1038/ngeo.2007.38.329
Shindell, D. and G. Schmidt, 2004: Southern Hemisphere climate responses to ozone changes330
and greenhouse has increases. Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L18209, doi:10.1029/331
2004GL020724.332
14
Son, S., et al., 2010: Impact of stratospheric ozone on Southern Hemisphere circulation333
change: A multimodel assessment. Journal of Geophysical Research, 115, D00M07, doi:334
10.1029/2010JD014271.335
Son, S.-W., N. Tandon, M. Lorenzo, and D. Waugh, 2009: Ozone hole and South-336
ern Hemisphere climate change. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L15705, doi:10.1029/337
2009GL038671.338
Son, S.-W., et al., 2008: The impact of stratospheric ozone recovery on the Southern Hemi-339
sphere westerly jet. Science, 320, 1486–1489, doi:10.1126/science.1155939.340
Sun, Y., S. Solomon, A. Dai, and R. Portmann, 2007: How often will it rain? Journal of341
Climate, 20, 4801–4818, doi:10.1175/JCLI4263.1.342
Thompson, D. and S. Solomon, 2002: Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate343
change. Science, 296, 895–899.344
Wong, A., N. Bindoff, and J. Church, 1999: Large-scale freshening of intermediate waters in345
the Pacific and Indian oceans. Nature, 400, 440–443.346
Yin, J., 2005: A consistent poleward shift of the storm tracks in simulations of 21st century347
climate. Geophysical Research Letters, 32, L18701, doi:10.1029/2005GL023684.348
Yu, L., X. Jin, and R. Weller, 2008: Multidecade Global Flux Datasets from the Objectively349
Analyzed Air-sea Fluxes (OAFlux) Project: Latent and Sensible Heat Fluxes, Ocean350
Evaporation, and Related Surface Meteorological Variables. OAFlux Project Technical351
Report OA-2008-01, available online from: http://oaflux.whoi.edu/documents.html,352
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, USA.353
15
List of Tables354
1 Description of CMIP3 models used in this study. Details of each model are355
described in Randall et al. (2007). Resolutions refer to atmospheric resolution356
and horizontal resolution is approximate for spectral models, where “T” refers357
to triangular truncation. The number of ensemble members refers to those358
used in precipitation analyses. Brackets indicate where different ensemble359
members are used in evaporation analyses. 17360
2 Summary of differences in percentage change between the models with time-361
varying ozone forcings and those with fixed ozone forcing. Here percent-362
age change is defined as a decadal change normalised by long-term climatol-363
ogy, calculated for the high-latitude (averaged over 4–24◦ south of individual364
model’s climatological jet) and mid-latitude (averaged over 12–0◦ north of365
individual model’s climatological jet) regions. Only the values which are sta-366
tistically significant at the 99 % confidence level are shown. Significance tests367
are based on a Monte Carlo approach. This approach selects one group of368
ten models (eight for evaporation) and one group of nine models at random369
and calculates the percentage change difference between the means of the two370
groups. This is repeated 50,000 times to get a statistical distribution. The371
actual difference between the mean of the varying ozone group and the fixed372
ozone group is then compared with this statistical distribution at the 99 %373
confidence level. Although not shown, overall results are qualitatively similar374
to a two-sided Student’s t test at the 99 % confidence level. Only results from375
DJF are shown, as no significant values are found in other seasons. 18376
16
Table 1. Description of CMIP3 models used in this study. Details of each model aredescribed in Randall et al. (2007). Resolutions refer to atmospheric resolution and horizontalresolution is approximate for spectral models, where “T” refers to triangular truncation. Thenumber of ensemble members refers to those used in precipitation analyses. Brackets indicatewhere different ensemble members are used in evaporation analyses.
Model Group, country Horizontal res. Vertical res. 20C3m A1B(lat. × lon.) levels, top members members
Varying ozoneCCSM3.0 NCAR, USA T85 (1.4◦ × 1.4◦) 26, 2.2 hPa 4 (3) 5CSIRO-Mk3.0 CSIRO, Australia T63 (1.9◦ × 1.9◦) 18, 4.5 hPa 3 (2) 1CSIRO-Mk3.5d CSIRO, Australia T63 (1.9◦ × 1.9◦) 18, 4.5 hPa 3 1ECHAM5/MPI-OM MPI, Germany T63 (1.9◦ × 1.9◦) 31, 10 hPa 2 2GFDL-CM2.0 NOAA, USA 2.0◦ × 2.5◦ 24, 3 hPa 1 1GFDL-CM2.1 NOAA, USA 2.0◦ × 2.5◦ 24, 3 hPa 1 (0) 1 (0)INGV-SXG INGV, Italy T106 (1.1◦ × 1.1◦) 19, 10 hPa 1 1MIROC3.2(hires) CCSR, Japan T106 (1.1◦ × 1.1◦) 56, 40 km 1 1MIROC3.2(medres) CCSR, Japan T42 (2.8◦ × 2.8◦) 20, 30 km 2 3 (1)PCM1.1 NCAR, USA T42 (2.8◦ × 2.8◦) 26, 2.2 hPa 3 (0) 1 (0)Fixed ozoneBCCR-BCM2.0 BCCR, Norway T63 (1.9◦ × 1.9◦) 16, 25 hPa 1 1CGCM3.1(T47) CCCma, Canada T47 (2.8◦ × 2.8◦) 31, 1 hPa 5 3CGCM3.1(T63) CCCma, Canada T63 (1.9◦ × 1.9◦) 31, 1 hPa 1 1CNRM-CM3∗ CNRM, France T63 (1.9◦ × 1.9◦) 45, 0.05 hPa 1 1ECHO-G MIUB, Germ./Korea T30 (3.9◦ x 3.9◦) 19, 10 hPa 3 (1) 3 (1)GISS-AOM NASA, USA 3.0◦ × 4.0◦ 12, 10 hPa 1 1INM-CM3.0 INM, Russia 4.0◦ × 5.0◦ 21, 10 hPa 1 1IPSL-CM4 IPSL, France 2.5◦ × 3.7◦ 19, 4 hPa 2 1MRI-CGCM2.3.2 MRI, Japan T42 (2.8◦ × 2.8◦) 30, 0.4 hPa 5 (1) 5 (1)∗ Model documentation claims inclusion of ozone chemistry, however analysis of Antarctic polar-captemperature by Son et al. (2008) found no ozone impact in either 20C3m or A1B simulations.
17
Table 2. Summary of differences in percentage change between the models with time-varying ozone forcings and those with fixed ozone forcing. Here percentage change is definedas a decadal change normalised by long-term climatology, calculated for the high-latitude(averaged over 4–24◦ south of individual model’s climatological jet) and mid-latitude (av-eraged over 12–0◦ north of individual model’s climatological jet) regions. Only the valueswhich are statistically significant at the 99 % confidence level are shown. Significance testsare based on a Monte Carlo approach. This approach selects one group of ten models (eightfor evaporation) and one group of nine models at random and calculates the percentagechange difference between the means of the two groups. This is repeated 50,000 times toget a statistical distribution. The actual difference between the mean of the varying ozonegroup and the fixed ozone group is then compared with this statistical distribution at the99 % confidence level. Although not shown, overall results are qualitatively similar to atwo-sided Student’s t test at the 99 % confidence level. Only results from DJF are shown,as no significant values are found in other seasons.
High-latitudes Mid-latitudes20thC 21stC 20thC 21stCDJF DJF DJF DJF
Mean precipitation 3.1 % 2.6 %Very-light precipitation 3.5 %Light precipitation 4.2 % -4.1 %Moderate-to-heavy precip.
18
List of Figures377
1 Multimodel-mean trends of precipitation (first row), evaporation (second row)378
and precipitation minus evaporation (third row) in DJF. Trends are calcu-379
lated by differencing 1961–1970 from 1990–1999 averages, and 1990–1999 from380
2056–2065 averages, for 20th and 21st century trends, respectively. From left381
to right, multimodel-mean trends are shown for models with and without382
ozone depletion in the 20th century, and for models with and without ozone383
recovery in the 21st century respectively. Cool colours denote an increas-384
ing freshwater flux (increasing precipitation or decreasing evaporation) whilst385
warm colours denote a decreasing freshwater flux (decreasing precipitation or386
increasing evaporation). Hatched areas denote where the multimodel-mean387
trend is greater than or equal to one standard deviation. Contours show the388
climatology, with contour intervals of 100 mm season−1 for all panels. 21389
2 Multimodel-mean trends in very-light (0.1–1 mm day−1, first row), light (1–10390
mm day−1, second row), moderate-to-heavy (>10 mm day−1, third row), and391
95th percentile (fourth row) precipitation in DJF. Other details are the same392
as Fig. 1. Note that the colour scale is an order of magnitude less for very-light393
precipitation so that details can be seen. Contour intervals of climatologies394
are 20 mm season−1 for very-light precipitation panels and 50 mm season−1395
for all other panels. 22396
3 Zonal-mean precipitation climatology (first row) and total (second row), very-397
light (third row), light (fourth row), and moderate-to-heavy (fifth row) pre-398
cipitation trends in DJF, plotted as a function of jet-relative latitudes in the399
SH. Zonal-mean values are shown for individual models (varying ozone models400
in blue and fixed ozone models in red), multimodel averages (bold blue and401
red lines) and GPCP precipitation (bold black line). Both 20th century (left402
column) and 21st century (right column) simulations are shown. 23403
19
4 Zonal-mean precipitation (first row), surface zonal wind (second row) and404
surface air temperature (third row) trends in DJF, plotted as a function of405
jet-relative latitudes in the SH. Mean trends (left column) and frequency of406
occurence of 95th percentile events (right column) are shown. Only 20th cen-407
tury simulations are presented. Note that the frequency trends on the right408
are different from 95th percentile precipitation trends, as the latter is a cumu-409
lative quantity. Due to surface wind data availability, CCSM3.0, PCM1.1 and410
INM-CM3.0 are not included in these panels. The same colour convention as411
Fig. 3 is used. 24412
20
Fig. 1. Multimodel-mean trends of precipitation (first row), evaporation (second row) andprecipitation minus evaporation (third row) in DJF. Trends are calculated by differencing1961–1970 from 1990–1999 averages, and 1990–1999 from 2056–2065 averages, for 20th and21st century trends, respectively. From left to right, multimodel-mean trends are shown formodels with and without ozone depletion in the 20th century, and for models with and with-out ozone recovery in the 21st century respectively. Cool colours denote an increasing fresh-water flux (increasing precipitation or decreasing evaporation) whilst warm colours denotea decreasing freshwater flux (decreasing precipitation or increasing evaporation). Hatchedareas denote where the multimodel-mean trend is greater than or equal to one standarddeviation. Contours show the climatology, with contour intervals of 100 mm season−1 for allpanels.
21
Fig. 2. Multimodel-mean trends in very-light (0.1–1 mm day−1, first row), light (1–10 mmday−1, second row), moderate-to-heavy (>10 mm day−1, third row), and 95th percentile(fourth row) precipitation in DJF. Other details are the same as Fig. 1. Note that the colourscale is an order of magnitude less for very-light precipitation so that details can be seen.Contour intervals of climatologies are 20 mm season−1 for very-light precipitation panels and50 mm season−1 for all other panels.
22
0
200
400
600
800
clim
atol
ogy
(mm
)
20thC DJF
varying O3
fixed O3
GPCP
−10
−5
0
5
10
15
mea
n tr
end
−0.5
0
0.5
very
−lig
ht tr
end
−5
0
5
light
tren
d
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50−10
−5
0
5
10
15
latitude relative to the jet (o)
mod
erat
e−to
−he
avy
tren
d
21stC DJF
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50
latitude relative to the jet (o)
prec
ipita
tion
tren
ds (
mm
/ se
ason
/ de
cade
)
Fig. 3. Zonal-mean precipitation climatology (first row) and total (second row), very-light(third row), light (fourth row), and moderate-to-heavy (fifth row) precipitation trends inDJF, plotted as a function of jet-relative latitudes in the SH. Zonal-mean values are shown forindividual models (varying ozone models in blue and fixed ozone models in red), multimodelaverages (bold blue and red lines) and GPCP precipitation (bold black line). Both 20th
century (left column) and 21st century (right column) simulations are shown.
23
−10
−5
0
5
10
prec
ipita
tion
(mm
/ se
ason
/ de
cade
)
20thC DJF mean trends
varying O3
fixed O3
−1
−0.5
0
0.5
120thC DJF 95th percentile trends
−0.5
0
0.5
surf
ace
zona
l win
d(m
s−1
/ de
cade
)
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50−1
−0.5
0
0.5
1
latitude relative to the jet (o)
(num
ber
of e
vent
s / s
easo
n / d
ecad
e)
−40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50−0.5
0
0.5
surf
ace
air
tem
p.(K
/ de
cade
)
latitude relative to the jet (o)
Fig. 4. Zonal-mean precipitation (first row), surface zonal wind (second row) and surfaceair temperature (third row) trends in DJF, plotted as a function of jet-relative latitudesin the SH. Mean trends (left column) and frequency of occurence of 95th percentile events(right column) are shown. Only 20th century simulations are presented. Note that thefrequency trends on the right are different from 95th percentile precipitation trends, as thelatter is a cumulative quantity. Due to surface wind data availability, CCSM3.0, PCM1.1and INM-CM3.0 are not included in these panels. The same colour convention as Fig. 3 isused.
24
Recommended