A CCM simulation of the breakup of the Antarctic polar vortex in the years 1980–2004 under the CCMVal scenarios

Abstract

The changes in breakup time of the Antarctic polar vortex in the years 1980–2004 are examined using the output of chemistry climate model (CCM) calculations, data from the National Centers for Environmental Prediction/the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCEP/NCAR) Reanalysis, and data from the European Center for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts Reanalysis (ERA40). The CCM used in this study is from the Center for Climate System Research/National Institute for Environmental Studies (CCSR/NIES). The CCM calculations are performed with the two ensemble members for REF1 scenario of the chemistry climate model validation (CCMVal) and the one ensemble member for the REF2 scenario. CCM simulates the development of the ozone hole from 1982 to 2000, as observed with a total ozone mapping spectrometer (TOMS), although the year‐to‐year variation is different from the observation owing to the internal variability of CCM and the ozone decreasing trends of CCM ozone in the two ensemble members of REF1 are underestimated. The trends in temperature and zonal mean zonal wind are analyzed and compared with the observations. There is consistency among the trends in zonal mean temperature, zonal mean zonal wind, and total ozone, but they differ among the ensemble members and observations. The diabatic heating rates and Eliassen‐Palm flux fields are investigated in order to explain the differences. A delay trend in the breakup time of the Antarctic polar vortex is obtained for the period of 1980–1999 in the NCEP/NCAR and ERA40 data. A similar trend is also obtained from the CCM simulations, with statistical significance in one ensemble member of REF1 and REF2. Because the trends of the observations in the EP flux from the troposphere and its deposition in the lower stratosphere are consistent with an advanced breakup date of the polar vortex and because the trends of the CCM simulations are very small, it is likely that the Antarctic ozone depletion had some effect on the delay during the period 1980–1999. From 2000 to 2004, the NCEP/NCAR data show a large variation in breakup time, which makes the delay trend much less important. It is likely that the large variation in wave flux masked the effects of the ozone loss during that period. The two ensemble members of the REF1 simulation do not show such a dramatic change in the trend for the period 2000–2004, whereas REF2 shows a change in the trend for that period.