A Monte Carlo Uncertainty Analysis of Ozone Trend Predictions in a Two Dimensional Model

We use Monte Carlo analysis to estimate the uncertainty in predictions of total O3 trends between 1979 and 1995 made by the Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) two-dimensional (2D) model of stratospheric photochemistry and dynamics. The uncertainty is caused by gas-phase chemical reaction rates, photolysis coefficients, and heterogeneous reaction parameters which are model inputs. The uncertainty represents a lower bound to the total model uncertainty assuming the input parameter uncertainties are characterized correctly. Each of the Monte Carlo runs was initialized in 1970 and integrated for 26 model years through the end of 1995. This was repeated 419 times using input parameter sets generated by Latin Hypercube Sampling. The standard deviation (a) of the Monte Carlo ensemble of total 03 trend predictions is used to quantify the model uncertainty. The 34% difference between the model trend in globally and annually averaged total O3 using nominal inputs and atmospheric trends calculated from Nimbus 7 and Meteor 3 total ozone mapping spectrometer (TOMS) version 7 data is less than the 46% calculated 1 (sigma), model uncertainty, so there is no significant difference between the modeled and observed trends. In the northern hemisphere midlatitude spring the modeled and observed total 03 trends differ by more than 1(sigma) but less than 2(sigma), which we refer to as marginal significance. We perform a multiple linear regression analysis of the runs which suggests that only a few of the model reactions contribute significantly to the variance in the model predictions. The lack of significance in these comparisons suggests that they are of questionable use as guides for continuing model development. Large model/measurement differences which are many multiples of the input parameter uncertainty are seen in the meridional gradients of the trend and the peak-to-peak variations in the trends over an annual cycle. These discrepancies unambiguously indicate model formulation problems and provide a measure of model performance which can be used in attempts to improve such models.