1 / 33

Sensitivity of CO simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Sensitivity of CO simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories C. Schnadt Poberaj , R. Bintanja, O. Dessens, M. Gauss, V. Grewe, D.  Hauglustaine , P. Hoor, I. Isaksen, P. Jöckel , B. Koffi, J. Staehelin (presentation) , P. van Velthoven.

field
Télécharger la présentation

Sensitivity of CO simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Sensitivity of CO simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories C. Schnadt Poberaj, R. Bintanja, O. Dessens, M. Gauss, V. Grewe, D. Hauglustaine, P. Hoor, I. Isaksen, P. Jöckel, B. Koffi, J. Staehelin (presentation) , P. van Velthoven QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  2. Tropospheric CO concentrations depend on: • Emission strength • CO formation from methane and NM-VOCs • Atmospheric transport including mixing, etc. • Oxidation by OH (on the order of 1-2 months) reaction rate depends on temp. and pressure • Earlier study: D. Brunner, J. Staehelin, H. L. Rogers, M. O. Köhler, J. A. Pyle, D. Hauglustaine, L. Jourdain, T. K. Berntsen, M. Gauss, I. S. A. Isaksen,E. Meijer, P. van Velthoven, G. Pitari, E. Mancini, V. Grewe, and R. Sausen: An evaluation of the performance of chemistry transport models by comparison with research aircraft observations. Part 1: Concepts and overall model performance. Atmos. Chem. Phys., 3, 1609-1631 (2003). QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  3. Budget of CO emissions (in Tg/yr)used in simulations in Brunner et al., 2003 Left column: recommended for the study; right column: used by LMDZ-INCA QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  4. Brunner et al. (UT/LS): Inappropriate description of mixing at tropopause tropopause QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  5. However: Brunner et al. 2003 also reported significant offsets QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  6. New study: Poberaj et al.: Comparison with SPURT • Aims of SPURT • Investigate dynamical and chemical processes affecting the chemical comp- osition of the extratropical lowermost stratosphere • Eight airborne measurement campaigns in different months during 2001-2003 • Typical campaign: • Two northbound and two southbound flights covering 35°N to 75°N on two consecutive days: snapshot of trace gas distribution over Europe for given meteorological situation • - Profiles (Lear jet) allways reached stratopshere QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  7. Comparison with SPURT data: (UT/) LS over Europe 15 Feb 2003 16 Feb 2003 QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  8. No model allows for good representation of both, tropospheric and stratospheric measurements SPURT February 2003 Scatter plots: CO QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  9. Tropospheric values: Strong dependence on emission inventory OSLO CTM2 POET emissions OSLO CTM2 QUANTIFY prelim. SPURT February 2003 Vertical distribution of CO POET emissions ≈60 ppbv QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  10. OSLO CTM2 POET emissions  60 ppb Other models: EDGAR 3.2 Fast Track 2000 Poor representation using EDGAR 3.2. Fast Track 2000 emission data used SPURT TM4 SPURT February 2003 Vertical distribution of CO QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  11. Emissions: who knows ??????? Who uses which emissions data sets? Please specify if different than indicated. Please also specify if you used a global lightning emissions value of 2 or 5 TgN/yr. QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  12. Global totals of CO emissions in Tg CO/yr (Tg C/yr) in preliminary and final QUANTIFY simulations, and in OSLO POET simulation Michael, can you indicate what are the emissions totals for your POET emissions run? QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  13. Confirmation of first results: - CO behaviour using MOZAIC profiles at airports - Extension to Northern hemisphere (SPURT measurements were only performed over EUROPE .....) Comparison for 2003 (Heat wave over Europe) QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  14. Hemisphericview on simulated CO: MOZAIC profiles at airports OSLO CTM2 (QUANTIFY preliminary) QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  15. Hemisphericview on simulated CO: MOZAIC profiles at airports OSLO CTM2 (QUANTIFY final) QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  16. Hemisphericview on simulated CO: MOZAIC profiles at airports OSLO CTM2 (POET emissions) QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  17. Differences between modelled and observed tropospheric CO (850 – 350 hPa) DJF • Modelled CO significantly underestimated when EDGARFT2000 anthropogenic emissions, GFED BB emissions, and QUANTIFY traffic emissions are used. Model biases very similar. • Using QUANTIFY final instead of preliminary road emissions, modelled CO is increased by up to 30% at middle latitudes and in the subtropics. • However, simulated CO still 10 to 40 ppbv lower than observed. • Best agreement with MOZAIC observations when using POET emissions (emission stength ????). • MOCAGE CO emissions in India and Japan??? QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  18. Differences between modelled and observed tropospheric CO (850 – 350 hPa) MAM • Using QUANTIFY final instead of preliminary road emissions, modelled CO is increased by 10-18% at middle latitudes and in the subtropics. • However, simulated CO still 10 to 60 ppbv lower than observed. • MOCAGE CO emissions in India and Japan??? • LMDZ: negative CO concentration at Caracas??? (need to check this still) QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  19. Differences between modelled and observed tropospheric CO (850 – 350 hPa) JJA • Using QUANTIFY final instead of preliminary road emissions, modelled CO is increased by 0-76% (Chicago/New York) at middle latitudes and in the subtropics. • However, simulated CO still 10 to 55 ppbv lower than observed. • MOCAGE CO emissions in India??? QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  20. Differences between modelled and observed tropospheric CO (850 – 350 hPa) SON • Using QUANTIFY final instead of preliminary road emissions, modelled CO is increased by ≈ 10-17% at middle latitudes and in the subtropics. The increase is larger at Tokyo and Caracas. • However, simulated CO still 15 to 30 ppbv lower than observed. • MOCAGE CO emissions in India and Japan??? QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  21. Time series of CO-MOZAIC measurements for Europe I: Was 2003 exceptional ? QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  22. Time series of CO-MOZAIC measurements for Europe II: Was 2003 exceptional ? QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  23. Time series of CO-MOZAIC measurements for USA: Was 2003 exceptional ? QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  24. Time series of CO-MOZAIC measurements for Asia: Was 2003 exceptional ? QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  25. Tropospheric CO concentrations (SPURT, MOZAIC) and simulations • EDGAR fast track (much) too low • Preliminary QUANTIFY: Much too low • Final QUANTIFY still considerably too low • POET: Much better • No evidence for large CO anomalies in 2003 EGU, 19 April 2007

  26. Comparison with emissions inventory used by Brunner et al. 2003 (“TRADEOFF”) QUANT final TRADEOFF * - Road traffic 220 650 + domestic burning - Biomass burning 700 745 - Vegetation + soil 0 200 - Total emissions 965 1550 • In the TRADEOFF (Brunner et al., 2003) comparison with field measurements of the 1995-1998 was made – anthropogenic emissions: road traffic + domestic heating decrease almost a factor of 3 ??? • Vegetation and soil emissions in QUANT ??? EGU, 19 April 2007

  27. Summary • All models using EDGARFT2000 anthropogenic emissions, GFED biomass burning emissions, and QUANTIFY traffic emissions: • significant underestimation of tropospheric CO concentrations at middle and subtropical latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Somewhat better agreement in UT/LS (see profiles in the appendix). • Sensitivity runs with OSLO CTM2 show much better agreement with MOZAIC observations when POET emissions (which categories??) are used. • Using final QUANTIFY road emissions improves model behaviour to some degree, but does not remove the negative offset from observations • More confidence in QUANTIFY NOx emissions ? Why ??? QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  28. Open questions • Why does the OSLO simulation using POET emissions agrees so much better with observations than the runs using QUANTIFY preliminary emissions? Which part of the emissions are responsible for the improved agreement? • How large is the interannual variability in CO, i.e. how representative are CO emissions inventories of the year 2000? In case 2003 was unusual in terms of tropospheric CO concentrations (figure will follow: MOZAIC anomaly timeseries for the period 2001-2006), can we at all say that using POET emissions is more appropriate? Possible further work ? • Sensitivity simulation of 2001 or 2002 (depending on observed CO concentrations) using either QUANTIFY final emissions or POET emissions with OSLO CTM2 (if possible). Timepos files for MOZAIC would be provided. QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  29. Hemispheric view on simulated CO: MOZAIC profiles at airports pTOMCAT T42 QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  30. Hemispheric view on simulated CO: MOZAIC profiles at airports TM4 QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  31. Hemispheric view on simulated CO: MOZAIC profiles at airports ? LMDZ QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  32. Hemispheric view on simulated CO: MOZAIC profiles at airports E5-MESSy QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

  33. Hemispheric view on simulated CO: MOZAIC profiles at airports ? MOCAGE QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride

More Related