1. SOLARIS-HEPPA Report for SSG meeting Incheon 2017
Bernd Funke1 and Katja Matthes2
1Instituto de Astrofísica de Andalucía, CSIC, Spain
2GEOMAR&CAU, Kiel, Germany
SSG meeting,Incheon, South Korea, October 2017

2. SOLARIS-HEPPA Research Overview
Solar forcing
Radiation
EPP
Impact on dynamics & chemistry
Impact on climate +
decadal prediction
Gray et al. , 2010

3. Outline Achievements of this year:
Solar Forcing for CMIP6: Paper finally published (Matthes et al., 2017, GMD), data available at ESGF (input4mips).
HEPPA-II model-measurement intercomparison 2008/2009 published (Funke et al., 2017, ACP).
New WGs for coordinated analysis of CCMI runs became active
SOLARIS-HEPPA WG meeting 6-8 November 2017 in Paris/France (host: Rémi Thiéblemont).
Contribution to white paper from WCRP GC6 Near Term Prediction
Plans for next year

4. CMIP6 solar forcing published
New SSI/TSI reference: (NRLSSI2+SATIRE)/2
Consideration of particle forcing for the first time.
More realistic future solar forcing (including secular variations)

5. HEPPA II study published
Obs.
Medium top
Reasonable model representation of polar winter NOx descent in unperturbed early winter (agreement with observations mostly within 20%)
Large and systematic model deviations regarding temperature and NOx during the perturbed phase of the winter (SSW and ES event) highlight deficiencies in GW schemes.
High top

6. New SOLARIS-HEPPA WGs for Coordinated CCMI Analysis
WG1: Stratospheric Signal
Co-leads: Markus Kunze and Gabriel Chiodo
WG2: Surface Signal
Co-leads: Kleareti Tourpali and Stergios Misios
WG3: Comparison with (satellite) observations
Co-leads: Eugene Rozanov, Amanda Maycock, and Alessandro Damiani
WG4: Methodological Analysis
Co-leads: Rémi Thiéblemont and Will Ball
WG5: Medium Energy Electrons (MEE) Model-Measurement intercomparison
Co-leads: Miriam Sinnhuber and Hilde Nesse-Tissøy
SPARC Newsletter Article Jan 2017: Matthes, Funke, Randall, Verronen: Update on SOLARIS-HEPPA Activities: New Working Groups.

7. Zonal winds (m/s) Nov to April
Working group 2
coordinated by Kleareti Tourpali and Stergios Misios
Analysis of the solar irradiance and particle effects on surface climate taking atmosphere ocean coupling processes into account in both historical ( ) and future ( ) simulations, i.e. CCMI REF-C1 and REF-C2. Focus on NAO.
Zonal winds (m/s) Nov to April
The CMIP5 models collectively do not show a strong influence in the NAO region, which has been attributed to the lack of interactive ozone. Room for opportunities with CCMI…
Too weak to influence NAO significantly!
Left: High-top
Right: Low-top
Mitchell et al., 2015

8. coordinated by Eugene Rozanov, Amanda Maycock, and Alessandro Damiani
Working group 3
coordinated by Eugene Rozanov, Amanda Maycock, and Alessandro Damiani
Comparison of modeled and observed signals resulting from solar irradiance and particle forcing in the specified dynamics experiments covering the satellite era from (REF-C1SD).
Compare the zonal wind and temperature and evaluate whether they match the respective reanalysis products.
Conclusions
Simulated tropical temperature response (in K) depends on source of nudging data and pressure range of nudging. Double-peaked stratospheric response pronounced in models nudged by ERA-I or MERRA.
Kuchar et al., in preparation

9. coordinated by Eugene Rozanov, Amanda Maycock, and Alessandro Damiani
Working group 3
coordinated by Eugene Rozanov, Amanda Maycock, and Alessandro Damiani
Comparison of modeled and observed signals resulting from solar irradiance and particle forcing in the specified dynamics experiments covering the satellite era from (REF-C1SD).
Influence of the solar cycle on the Polar-night Jet Oscillation in the Southern Hemisphere
Zonal wind difference (m/s) between high and low solar activity years for August and September
ERA-Interim ( )
CCM CCSR
CCM CHASER
CCM CMAM
CCM EMAC-L47-p1
Conclusions
Wind response is very similar to ERA-I before September but different after.
Responses to solar forcing is almost the same for all models (because of SD)
Kuroda et al., in preparation

10. coordinated by Eugene Rozanov, Amanda Maycock, and Alessandro Damiani
Working group 3
coordinated by Eugene Rozanov, Amanda Maycock, and Alessandro Damiani
Comparison of modeled and observed signals resulting from solar irradiance and particle forcing in the specified dynamics experiments covering the satellite era from (REF-C1SD).
Analyze the solar ozone responses diagnosed from the REF-C1SD simulations and compare to those obtained from satellites and REF-C1.
REFC
REFC1SD
Main points so far:
Upper stratospheric ozone response similar in most models
Stronger tropical lower stratospheric signal in REFC1-SD – investigate possible aliasing with volcanic signal.
Maycock et al., in preparation

11. coordinated by Eugene Rozanov, Amanda Maycock, and Alessandro Damiani
Working group 3
coordinated by Eugene Rozanov, Amanda Maycock, and Alessandro Damiani
Comparison of modeled and observed signals resulting from solar irradiance and particle forcing in the specified dynamics experiments covering the satellite era from (REF-C1SD).
Polar NOy: response to EPP
MIPAS SOCOL3 MRI SLIMCAT GEOSCCM HADGEM3 IPSL CCSRNIES
Comparison of the simulated 60o-90oS mean NOy (ppbv) with MIPAS data at 60 km
Conclusion:
NOy VMR is underestimated in all models (slightly better in SOCOL and MRI) because of absence or not accurate treatment of the energetic particles
WACCM
Rozanov et al., in preparation

12. coordinated by Rémi Thiéblemont and Will Ball
Working group 4
coordinated by Rémi Thiéblemont and Will Ball
Assessing statistical approaches to analyse solar signals in model and observational data.
Motivation:
T response to solar cycle (SOCOL)
present
Aliasing with volcanic signal (Chiodo et al., 2014; Kuchar et al., 2017)
SAD
F10.7
all forcings
no volcanoes
no volcanoes + no enso
(Kuchar et al., JGR, 2017)
Role of internal variability (Thiéblemont et al., 2015)
NAO (DJF) in CESM(WACCM)
NAO power spectral density

13. coordinated by Rémi Thiéblemont and Will BallP
Working group 4
coordinated by Rémi Thiéblemont and Will Ball
Assessing statistical approaches to analyse solar signals in model and observational data.
Task 1: Using artificial time series (MOCKS) to assess MLR attribution methods
Solar
ENSO
QBO30
QBO50
Precision ?
Bias ?
SAOD
This slide shows our first activity that Will and I are leading
Note that we have an acronym for WG4 which is MASSI (Methodological Analysis for Solar Signal Identification) AR
target
Data gaps
Noise
Solar coefficient
WG Leaders: R. Thiéblemont, W. Ball

14. coordinated by Miriam Sinnhuber and Hilde Nesse-Tissøy
Working group 5
coordinated by Miriam Sinnhuber and Hilde Nesse-Tissøy
Comparison of observed chemical (NO, OH, O3) responses to MEEs in the mesosphere with available model simulations that account for MEE ionization.
Geomagnetic forcing:
Downwelling of NOx produced in the auroral region during polar winter leads to ozone loss and net radiative heating rates at least down to the mid-stratosphere
 Recommended as part of solar forcing for CMIP-6 (Matthes et al., 2017)
Change in net radiative heating rates due to geomagnetic forcing: EMAC model results
Intercompare available forcing data for auroral / MEE forcing
Compare model results with available observations (NO, OH, O3) in the source region (mesosphere / lower thermosphere)
Sinnhuber et al., ACPD, 2017

15. WG 5: auroral vs. MEE
Left: energy deposition by auroral electrons (top) compared to auroral electrons + medium-energy electrons (bottom)
Right: Modelled NO (ppb) considering auroral energy deposition (top) and medium-energy electron deposition (bottom) compared to SOFIE observations
Smith-Johnsen et al, in preparation for JGR-space
In geomagnetic storms, medium-energy electrons affect the mesosphere  90 km
They should be considered in CCM model representations of geomagnetic forcing

16. Paris meeting SPARC SOLARIS-HEPPA working group meeting Paris
6-9 November 2017
Venue: University Pierre & Marie Curie (UPMC), Host: Rémi Thiéblemont
Aim: present and discuss preliminary results of the five new working groups
Format: solicited and invited oral contributions, no poster session, plenty of time for discussions
~30 participants expected

17. White paper from WCRP GC6 Near Term Prediction
Completed a draft white paper, led by co-chairs with active contributions from
the 17 members of the international team (incl. K. Matthes) – to be submitted shortly

18. 2018 Plans
Continuation of coordinated analysis of solar signal in CCMI simulations (WGs1-5)
7th HEPPA-SOLARIS Workshop in Blacksburg, Virginia, USA in May-June 2018.
Investigation of PI control experiments with variable solar cycle (not yet a formal MIP, might become one)
“standard”
“variable”

19. Thank you for your attention!