Search NASA⌕ Search

Engineering topics

Rotman, Douglas A.

Publications and source records attributed to Rotman, Douglas A..

Sensitivity of Global Modeling Initiative Model Predictions of Antarctic Ozone Recovery to Input Meteorological Fields

We use the Global Modeling Initiative chemistry and transport model to simulate the evolution of stratospheric ozone between 1995 and 2030, using boundary conditions consistent with the recent World Meteorological Organization ozone assessment. We compare the Antarctic ozone recovery predictions of two simulations, one driven by an annually repeated year of meteorological data from a general circulation model (GCM), the other using a year of output from a data assimilation system (DAS), to examine the sensitivity of Antarctic ozone recovery predictions to the characteristic dynamical differences between GCM- and DAS-generated meteorological data. Although the age of air in the Antarctic lower stratosphere differs by a factor of 2 between the simulations, we find little sensitivity of the 1995-2030 Antarctic ozone recovery between 350 and 650 K to the differing meteorological fields, particularly when the recovery is specified in mixing ratio units. Percent changes are smaller in the DAS-driven simulation compared to the GCM-driven simulation because of a surplus of Antarctic ozone in the DAS-driven simulation which is not consistent with observations. The peak ozone change between 1995 and 2030 in both simulations is approx.20% lower than photochemical expectations, indicating that changes in ozone transport due to changing ozone gradients at 450 K between 1995 and 2030 constitute a small negative feedback. Total winter/spring ozone loss during the base year (1995) of both simulations and the rate of ozone loss during August and September is somewhat weaker than observed. This appears to be due to underestimates of Antarctic Cl(sub y) at the 450 K potential temperature level.

Considine, David B.↗

An Intercomparison of 2-D Models Within a Common Framework

A model intercomparison among the Atmospheric and Environmental Research (AER) 2-D model, the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) 2-D model, and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2-D model allows us to separate differences due to model transport from those due to the model's chemical formulation. This is accomplished by constructing two hybrid models incorporating the transport parameters of the GSFC and LLNL models within the AER model framework. By comparing the results from the native models (AER and e.g. GSFC) with those from the hybrid model (e.g. AER chemistry with GSFC transport), differences due to chemistry and transport can be identified. For the analysis, we examined an inert tracer whose emission pattern is based on emission from a High Speed Civil Transport (HSCT) fleet; distributions of trace species in the 2015 atmosphere; and the response of stratospheric ozone to an HSCT fleet. Differences in NO(y) in the upper stratosphere are found between models with identical transport, implying different model representations of atmospheric chemical processes. The response of O3 concentration to HSCT aircraft emissions differs in the models from both transport-dominated differences in the HSCT-induced perturbations of H2O and NO(y) as well as from differences in the model represent at ions of O3 chemical processes. The model formulations of cold polar processes are found to be the most significant factor in creating large differences in the calculated ozone perturbations

Weisenstein, Debra K.↗

The chemical and radiative effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption

To clarify the mechanisms leading to effects on stratospheric ozone, time-dependent stratospheric aerosol and gas experiment II (SAGE II) and cryogenic limb array elaton spectrometer (CLAES) aerosol optical extinction data and SAGE II surface area density are used as parameters in a two-dimensional (2-D) zonally averaged chemical radiative transport model. The model was integrated with time from before the eruption through December 1993. The modeled impact on global ozone results from increased rates of heterogeneous reactions on sulfate aerosols and from the increased radiative heating and scattering caused by these aerosols. When the aerosol heating is allowed to modify the temperature distribution, the maximum change calculated in equatorial column ozone is -1.6%. The calculated equatorial temperature change and peak local ozone change in October 1991 are +6K and -4%, respectively. When aerosol heating perturbs the circulation in the model, the maximum change in equatorial column ozone is -6%. Increased heterogeneous processing on sulfate aerosols is calculated to have changed equatorial column ozone in late 1991 by -1.5%. Global column ozone in the model in 1992 and 1993 changed by -2.8% and -2.4%, respectively. The relationship of ozone-controlling processes in the lower stratosphere is altered as well; HO(x) becomes the most important catalytic cycle, followed by ClO(x) and NO(x). This is driven by significant changes in trace gas concentrations. In October 1991, lower stratospheric, equatorial NO(x) decreased by 40%, ClO(x) increased by 60%, and HO(x) increased by 25%. When the effect of heterogeneous chemical processing on sulfate aerosols is combined with aerosol heating, modifying either circulation or temperature, dramatically different ozone fingerprints with time and latitude are predicted. Model-derived changes in the equatorial region in column ozone best represented the observed data when perturbed circulation was combined with heterogeneous chemical effects. However, at high latitudes, the increased ozone production from the strengthening of the mean circulation tends to cancel the heterogeneous reduction of ozone. This is not in good agreement with observed data, especially in 1992 and 1993. When the circulation is held fixed and the temperature allowed to change, and heterogeneous chemical effects are included, the equatorial ozone decrease predicted was too small for 1991. However, the mid- to high-latitude decrease in 1992 and 1993 is in better agreement with observed data.

Kinneson, Douglas E.↗