Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

A large ozone-circulation feedback and its implications for global warming assessments


State-of-the-art climate models now include more climate processes simulated at higher spatial resolution than ever1. Nevertheless, some processes, such as atmospheric chemical feedbacks, are still computationally expensive and are often ignored in climate simulations1,2. Here we present evidence that the representation of stratospheric ozone in climate models can have a first-order impact on estimates of effective climate sensitivity. Using a comprehensive atmosphere–ocean chemistry–climate model, we find an increase in global mean surface warming of around 1 °C (~20%) after 75 years when ozone is prescribed at pre-industrial levels compared with when it is allowed to evolve self-consistently in response to an abrupt 4×CO2 forcing. The difference is primarily attributed to changes in long-wave radiative feedbacks associated with circulation-driven decreases in tropical lower stratospheric ozone and related stratospheric water vapour and cirrus cloud changes. This has important implications for global model intercomparison studies1,2 in which participating models often use simplified treatments of atmospheric composition changes that are consistent with neither the specified greenhouse gas forcing scenario nor the associated atmospheric circulation feedbacks3,4,5.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: Temporal evolution of the annual and global mean surface temperature anomalies.
Figure 2: Gregory regression plots.
Figure 3: Annual and zonal mean differences in ozone and temperature.
Figure 4: Cirrus cloud changes.


  1. 1

    Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J. & Meehl, G. A. An overview of CMIP5 and the experiment design. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 93, 485–498 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Kravitz, B. et al. An overview of the Geoengineering Model Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP). J. Geophys. Res. 118, 13103–13107 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Cionni, I. et al. Ozone database in support of CMIP5 simulations: Results and corresponding radiative forcing. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 11267–11292 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Eyring, V. et al. Long-term ozone changes and associated climate impacts in CMIP5 simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 5029–5060 (2013).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Jones, C. D. et al. The HadGEM2-ES implementation of CMIP5 centennial simulations. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 543–570 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Knutti, R. & Sedláček, J. Robustness and uncertainties in the new CMIP5 climate model projections. Nature Clim. Change 3, 369–373 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Son, S-W. et al. The impact of stratospheric ozone recovery on the Southern Hemisphere westerly jet. Science 320, 1486–1489 (2008).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Dietmüller, S., Ponater, M. & Sausen, R. Interactive ozone induces a negative feedback in CO2-driven climate change simulations. J. Geophys. Res. 119, 1796–1805 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Hewitt, H. T. et al. Design and implementation of the infrastructure of HadGEM3: The next-generation Met Office climate modelling system. Geosci. Model Dev. 4, 223–253 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Morgenstern, O. et al. Evaluation of the new UKCA climate-composition model — Part 1: The stratosphere. Geosci. Model Dev. 2, 43–57 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Gregory, J. M. et al. A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett. 31, L03205 (2004).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Andrews, T., Gregory, J. M., Webb, M. J. & Taylor, K. E. Forcing, feedbacks and climate sensitivity in CMIP5 coupled atmosphere–ocean climate models. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L09712 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13

    Meul, S., Langematz, U., Oberländer, S., Garny, H. & Jöckel, P. Chemical contribution to future tropical ozone change in the lower stratosphere. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14, 2959–2971 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Haigh, J. D. & Pyle, J. A. Ozone perturbation experiments in a two-dimensional circulation model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 108, 551–574 (1982).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Fels, S. B., Mahlman, J. D., Schwarzkopf, M. D. & Sinclair, R. W. Stratospheric sensitivity to perturbations in ozone and carbon dioxide: Radiative and dynamical response. J. Atmos. Sci. 37, 2265–2297 (1980).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Stuber, N., Ponater, M. & Sausen, R. Is the climate sensitivity to ozone perturbations enhanced by stratospheric water vapor feedback? Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 2887–2890 (2001).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Stuber, N., Ponater, M. & Sausen, R. Why radiative forcing might fail as a predictor of climate change. Clim. Dynam. 24, 497–510 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Lacis, A. A., Wuebbles, D. J. & Logan, J. A. Radiative forcing of climate by changes in the vertical distribution of ozone. J. Geophys. Res. 95, 9971–9981 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Hansen, J., Sato, M. & Ruedy, R. Radiative forcing and climate response. J. Geophys. Res. 102, 6831–6864 (1997).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Santer, B. D. et al. Contributions of anthropogenic and natural forcing to recent tropopause height changes. Science 301, 479–483 (2003).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Shepherd, T. G. & McLandress, C. A robust mechanism for strengthening of the Brewer–Dobson circulation in response to climate change: Critical-layer control of subtropical wave breaking. J. Atmos. Sci. 68, 784–797 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Hsu, J., Prather, M. J., Bergmann, D. & Cameron-Smith, P. Sensitivity of stratospheric dynamics to uncertainty in O3 production. J. Geophys. Res. 118, 8984–8999 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Boer, G. J. & Yu, B. Climate sensitivity and response. Clim. Dynam. 20, 415–429 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Kuebbeler, M., Lohmann, U. & Feichter, J. Effects of stratospheric sulfate aerosol geo-engineering on cirrus clouds. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39, L23803 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Webb, M. J. et al. On the contribution of local feedback mechanisms to the range of climate sensitivity in two GCM ensembles. Clim. Dynam. 27, 17–38 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    Zelinka, M. D. et al. Contributions of different cloud types to feedbacks and rapid adjustments in CMIP5. J. Clim. 26, 5007–5027 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27

    Telford, P. J. et al. Implementation of the Fast-JX Photolysis scheme (v6.4) into the UKCA component of the MetUM chemistry-climate model (v7.3). Geosci. Model Dev. 6, 161–177 (2013).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Edwards, J. M. & Slingo, A. Studies with a flexible new radiation code. I: Choosing a configuration for a large-scale model. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 122, 689–719 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29

    Cusack, S., Edwards, J. M. & Crowther, J. M. Investigating k distribution methods for parameterizing gaseous absorption in the Hadley Centre Climate Model. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 2051–2057 (1999).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Maycock, A. C., Shine, K. P. & Joshi, M. M. The temperature response to stratospheric water vapour changes. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 137, 1070–1082 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank the European Research Council for funding through the ACCI project, project number 267760. The model development was part of the QUEST-ESM project supported by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) under contract numbers RH/H10/19 and R8/H12/124. We acknowledge use of the MONSooN system, a collaborative facility supplied under the Joint Weather and Climate Research Programme, which is a strategic partnership between the UK Met Office and NERC. A.C.M. acknowledges support from an AXA Postdoctoral Research Fellowship. For plotting, we used Matplotlib, a 2D graphics environment for the Python programming language developed by J. D. Hunter. We are grateful for advice of P. Telford during the model development stage of this project and thank the UKCA team at the UK Met Office for help and support.

Author information




P.J.N. conducted the research on a day-to-day basis; the model was developed by N.L.A., J.M.G., M.M.J. and A.O.; N.L.A. and P.B. designed the initial experiment and its subsequent evolution; major analysis and interpretation of results was performed by P.J.N. and A.C.M.; P.J.N. led the paper writing, supported by A.C.M.; N.L.A., P.B. and J.A.P. all contributed to the discussion and interpretation of results and write-up; J.A.P. suggested the study.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peer J. Nowack.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nowack, P., Luke Abraham, N., Maycock, A. et al. A large ozone-circulation feedback and its implications for global warming assessments. Nature Clim Change 5, 41–45 (2015).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing