Articles | Volume 14, issue 2
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-935-2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-935-2021
Model evaluation paper
 | 
12 Feb 2021
Model evaluation paper |  | 12 Feb 2021

Evaluation of polar stratospheric clouds in the global chemistry–climate model SOCOLv3.1 by comparison with CALIPSO spaceborne lidar measurements

Michael Steiner, Beiping Luo, Thomas Peter, Michael C. Pitts, and Andrea Stenke

Related authors

An inter-comparison of inverse models for estimating European CH4 emissions
Eleftherios Ioannidis, Antoon Meesters, Michael Steiner, Dominik Brunner, Friedemann Reum, Isabelle Pison, Antoine Berchet, Rona Thompson, Espen Sollum, Frank-Thomas Koch, Christoph Gerbig, Fenjuan Wang, Shamil Maksyutov, Aki Tsuruta, Maria Tenkanen, Tuula Aalto, Guillaume Monteil, Hong Lin, Ge Ren, Marko Scholze, and Sander Houweling
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-235,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-235, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Improving the ensemble square root filter (EnSRF) in the Community Inversion Framework: a case study with ICON-ART 2024.01
Joël Thanwerdas, Antoine Berchet, Lionel Constantin, Aki Tsuruta, Michael Steiner, Friedemann Reum, Stephan Henne, and Dominik Brunner
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 1505–1544, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1505-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-1505-2025, 2025
Short summary
Airborne in situ quantification of methane emissions from oil and gas production in Romania
Hossein Maazallahi, Foteini Stavropoulou, Samuel Jonson Sutanto, Michael Steiner, Dominik Brunner, Mariano Mertens, Patrick Jöckel, Antoon Visschedijk, Hugo Denier van der Gon, Stijn Dellaert, Nataly Velandia Salinas, Stefan Schwietzke, Daniel Zavala-Araiza, Sorin Ghemulet, Alexandru Pana, Magdalena Ardelean, Marius Corbu, Andreea Calcan, Stephen A. Conley, Mackenzie L. Smith, and Thomas Röckmann
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 25, 1497–1511, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1497-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-1497-2025, 2025
Short summary
Flow-dependent observation errors for greenhouse gas inversions in an ensemble Kalman smoother
Michael Steiner, Luca Cantarello, Stephan Henne, and Dominik Brunner
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 12447–12463, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12447-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-12447-2024, 2024
Short summary
European CH4 inversions with ICON-ART coupled to the CarbonTracker Data Assimilation Shell
Michael Steiner, Wouter Peters, Ingrid Luijkx, Stephan Henne, Huilin Chen, Samuel Hammer, and Dominik Brunner
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 24, 2759–2782, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2759-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-2759-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Climate and Earth system modeling
FINAM is not a model (v1.0): a new Python-based model coupling framework
Sebastian Müller, Martin Lange, Thomas Fischer, Sara König, Matthias Kelbling, Jeisson Javier Leal Rojas, and Stephan Thober
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4483–4498, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4483-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4483-2025, 2025
Short summary
The Detection and Attribution Model Intercomparison Project (DAMIP v2.0) contribution to CMIP7
Nathan P. Gillett, Isla R. Simpson, Gabi Hegerl, Reto Knutti, Dann Mitchell, Aurélien Ribes, Hideo Shiogama, Dáithí Stone, Claudia Tebaldi, Piotr Wolski, Wenxia Zhang, and Vivek K. Arora
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4399–4416, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4399-2025, 2025
Short summary
Enhancing winter climate simulations of the Great Lakes: insights from a new coupled lake–ice–atmosphere (CLIAv1) system on the importance of integrating 3D hydrodynamics with a regional climate model
Pengfei Xue, Chenfu Huang, Yafang Zhong, Michael Notaro, Miraj B. Kayastha, Xing Zhou, Chuyan Zhao, Christa Peters-Lidard, Carlos Cruz, and Eric Kemp
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4293–4316, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4293-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4293-2025, 2025
Short summary
Modelling emission and transport of key components of primary marine organic aerosol using the global aerosol–climate model ECHAM6.3–HAM2.3
Anisbel Leon-Marcos, Moritz Zeising, Manuela van Pinxteren, Sebastian Zeppenfeld, Astrid Bracher, Elena Barbaro, Anja Engel, Matteo Feltracco, Ina Tegen, and Bernd Heinold
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4183–4213, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4183-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4183-2025, 2025
Short summary
Assessing the climate impact of an improved volcanic sulfate aerosol representation in E3SM
Ziming Ke, Qi Tang, Jean-Christophe Golaz, Xiaohong Liu, and Hailong Wang
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4137–4153, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4137-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4137-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Akiyoshi, H., Zhou, L. B., Yamashita, Y., Sakamoto, K., Yoshiki, M., Nagashima, T., Takahashi, M., Kurokawa, J., Takigawa, M., and Imamura, T.: A CCM simulation of the breakup of the Antarctic polar vortex in the years 1980–2004 under the CCMVal scenarios, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D03103, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007jd009261, 2009. a
Biele, J., Tsias, A., Luo, B. P., Carslaw, K. S., Neuber, R., Beyerle, G., and Peter, T.: Nonequilibrium coexistence of solid and liquid particles in Arctic stratospheric clouds, J. Geophys. Res., 106, 22991–23007, https://doi.org/10.1029/2001jd900188, 2001. a, b
Brühl, C., Steil, B., Stiller, G., Funke, B., and Jöckel, P.: Nitrogen compounds and ozone in the stratosphere: comparison of MIPAS satellite data with the chemistry climate model ECHAM5/MESSy1, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 7, 5585–5598, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-5585-2007, 2007. a
Carslaw, K. S., Luo, B. P., and Peter, T.: An analytic expression for the composition of aqueous HNO3−H2SO4 stratospheric aerosols including gas-phase removal of HNO3, Geophys. Res. Lett., 22, 1877–1880, https://doi.org/10.1029/95gl01668, 1995. a, b
Carslaw, K. S., Peter, T., Bacmeister, J. T., and Eckermann, S. D.: Widespread solid particle formation by mountain waves in the Arctic stratosphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 104, 1827–1836, https://doi.org/10.1029/1998JD100033, 1999. a
Download
Short summary
We evaluate polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs) as simulated by the chemistry–climate model (CCM) SOCOLv3.1 in comparison with measurements by the CALIPSO satellite. A cold bias results in an overestimated PSC area and mountain-wave ice is underestimated, but we find overall good temporal and spatial agreement of PSC occurrence and composition. This work confirms previous studies indicating that simplified PSC schemes may also achieve good approximations of the fundamental properties of PSCs.
Share