Abstract:The goal of the Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report (TOAR) is to provide the research community with an up-to-date scientific assessment of tropospheric ozone, from the surface to the tropopause. While a suite of observations provides significant information on the spatial and temporal distribution of tropospheric ozone, observational gaps make it necessary to use global atmospheric chemistry models to synthesize our understanding of the processes and variables that control tropospheric ozone abundance and its variability. Models facilitate the interpretation of the observations and allow us to make projections of future tropospheric ozone and trace gas distributions for different anthropogenic or natural perturbations. This paper assesses the skill of current-generation global atmospheric chemistry models in simulating the observed present-day tropospheric ozone distribution, variability, and trends. Drawing upon the results of recent international multi-model intercomparisons and using a range of model evaluation techniques, we demonstrate that global chemistry models are broadly skillful in capturing the spatio-temporal variations of tropospheric ozone over the seasonal cycle, for extreme pollution episodes, and changes over interannual to decadal periods. However, models are consistently biased high in the northern hemisphere and biased low in the southern hemisphere, throughout the depth of the troposphere, and are unable to replicate particular metrics that define the longer term trends in tropospheric ozone as derived from some background sites. When the models compare unfavorably against observations, we discuss the potential causes of model biases and propose directions for future developments, including improved evaluations that may be able to better diagnose the root cause of the model-observation disparity. Overall, model results should be approached critically, including determining whether the model performance is acceptable for the problem being addressed, whether biases can be tolerated or corrected, whether the model is appropriately constituted, and whether there is a way to satisfactorily quantify the uncertainty.

Assessing the consistency between short-term global temperature trends in observations and climate model projections

Using Climate Model Simulations to Constrain Observations

Assessment of inter-model variability and biases of the global water cycle in CMIP3 climate models

A Multiregion Model Evaluation and Attribution Study of Historical Changes in the Area Affected by Temperature and Precipitation Extremes

State-of-the-art Global Models Underestimate Impacts from Climate Extremes

Projection of Global Mean Surface Air Temperature Changes in Next 40 Years: Uncertainties of Climate Models and an Alternative Approach

Detection of Regional Surface Temperature Trends

Robust comparison of climate models with observations using blended land air and ocean sea surface temperatures

Chemistry-Climate Model Simulations of Recent Trends in Lower Stratospheric Temperature and Stratospheric Residual Circulation

Observations indicate regionally misleading wetting and drying trends in CMIP6

Exploiting large ensembles for a better yet simpler climate model evaluation

Sea ice trends in climate models only accurate in runs with biased global warming

Could detection and attribution of climate change trends be spurious regression?

Taking climate model evaluation to the next level

Evaluation of Leading Modes of Climate Variability in the CMIP Archives

Evaluating the Land and Ocean Components of the Global Carbon Cycle in the CMIP5 Earth System Models

Why Does the Ensemble Mean of CMIP6 Models Simulate Arctic Temperature More Accurately Than Global Temperature?

Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report:Assessment of Global-Scale Model Performance for Global and Regional Ozone Distributions, Variability, and Trends

Assessment of Sea Surface Temperature Warming in the Tropical Indian Ocean Simulated by CMIP Models

Dangerous human-made interference with climate: A GISS modelE study

To What Extent Does Discounting 'Hot' Climate Models Improve the Predictive Skill of Climate Model Ensembles?