Open AccessComparison between global chemistry transport model results and Measurement of Ozone and Water Vapor by Airbus In‐Service Aircraft (MOZAIC) data
Author(s) -
Law K. S.,
Plantevin P.H.,
Thouret V.,
Marenco A.,
Asman W. A. H.,
Lawrence M.,
Crutzen P. J.,
Muller J.F.,
Hauglustaine D. A.,
Kanakidou M.
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.67
H-Index - 298
eISSN - 2156-2202
pISSN - 0148-0227
DOI - 10.1029/1999jd900474
Subject(s) - stratosphere , troposphere , environmental science , atmospheric sciences , chemical transport model , tropopause , water vapor , climatology , meteorology , ozone , subtropics , tropics , tropospheric ozone , altitude (triangle) , geography , geology , mathematics , geometry , fishery , biology
Ozone distributions from state‐of‐the‐art global three‐dimensional chemistry transport models are compared to O 3 data collected on Airbus A340 passenger aircraft as part of the Measurement of Ozone and Water Vapor by Airbus In‐Service Aircraft (MOZAIC) project. The model results are compared to monthly averaged data at cruise altitudes in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere and monthly averaged vertical profiles collected over particular cities during takeoff and landing. The models generally show good agreement with the data in regions which have previously been well documented and where the meteorology is well understood/captured by meteorological models (e.g., over Europe). However, in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere, models often fail to capture sharp gradients across the tropopause and from the subtropics to the tropics. In some models, this is related to deficiencies in model transport schemes and upper boundary conditions. Also, regions of the globe where our understanding of meteorology is poorer and emissions are less well known (e.g., tropics, continental Africa, Asia, and South America) are not simulated as well by all models. At particular measurement locations, it is apparent that emission inventories used by some global models underestimate emissions in certain regions (e.g., over southern Asia) or have incorrect seasonal variations (e.g., biomass burning over South America). Deficiencies in chemical schemes may also explain differences between models and the data.