1 / 16

Global simulation of H 2 and HD with GEOS-CHEM

Global simulation of H 2 and HD with GEOS-CHEM Heather Price 1 , Lyatt Jaegl é 1 , Paul Quay 2 , Andrew Rice 2 , and Richard Gammon 2 University of Washington, Seattle Departments of 1 Atmospheric Sciences and 2 Oceanography 2 nd GEOS-CHEM Users Meeting 6 Apr 2005.

stamos
Télécharger la présentation

Global simulation of H 2 and HD with GEOS-CHEM

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. Global simulation of H2 and HD with GEOS-CHEM Heather Price1, Lyatt Jaeglé1, Paul Quay2, Andrew Rice2, and Richard Gammon2 University of Washington, Seattle Departments of 1Atmospheric Sciences and 2Oceanography 2nd GEOS-CHEM Users Meeting 6 Apr 2005

  2. Annual Global Budget of Molecular Hydrogen in the Troposphere Sources (Tg/yr) MOZARTa Novellic GEOS-CHEMd Hauglustaine Fossil Fuel 16 15±10 20 Biomass Burning 13 16±5 10 Biofuel 5b 4.4 Photochemical 31 40 41 Methane Oxidation 26 ± 9 27 BVOC Oxidation 14 ± 7 14 Ocean 5 3 ± 2 ~ N fixation 5 3 ± 1 ~ Total 70 77 76 Sinks (Tg/yr) MOZART Novelli GEOS-CHEM OHc 15 19 17 Soilsc 55 56 59 Total 70 75 77 Lifetime, years 1.9 2-3 2.1 • aHauglustaine et al., 2002; Photochemical production includes Methane(27.5Tg) and nonmethane hydrocarbons (14.2Tg): Isoprene, Acetone, Monoterpenes, and Methanol. • bAndreae & Merlet, 2001: bf H2/CO = 0.32 per molecule • cNovelli, 1999: bb H2/CO = 0.29, for fossil fuels Novelli uses global CO source of 500Tg/yr from Logan et al., 1981, Pacnya & Graedel, 1995 and WMO, 1995

  3. H2 and HD in the GEOS-CHEM Model Based on the GEOS-CHEM offline CO simulation v5.05.04 Sources H2/CO (per molecule) Fossil Fuels 0.59a Biomass Burning 0.30c Biofuels 0.32b Photochemical yield relative to CO Methane Oxidation 0.50 BVOC Oxidation 0.50 Sinks OHd H2 + OH → H2O + H k = 1.5x10 -13 e-2000/T Soils Uniform Deposition Velocity over land = 0.042 cm/s k • aOliver et al., 1996 CO emission inventory EDGAR • H2/CO (per molecule) = 0.588 or 0.042Tg H2/CO • bAndreae & Merlet, 2001: bf H2/CO = 0.32 or 0.023Tg H2/CO • cNovelli, 1999; bb H2/CO= 0.30 or 0.022Tg H2/CO • d JPL reported average of nine studies detailed in Ravishankara et al., 1981 and in excellent agreement with measurements by Talukdar et al., 1996.

  4. GEOS-CHEM Simulation of H2 Surface (JJA) Surface (DJF) H2 ppbv

  5. Validating the GEOS-CHEM H2 simulation against CMDL H2 Observations Surface (JJA) Surface (DJF) CMDL sites CMDL sites H2 ppbv (Novelli, 1999) Climate Monitoring and Diagnostics Laboratory: ftp://140.172.192.211/ccg/h2/flask/

  6. Correlation (r=0.76) model-obs obs Bias: x100 = 0.45% H2 Interhemispheric Gradient 600 550 500 450 400 GEOS-CHEM model NOAA CMDL observations (1989-2003) ~40 ppbv gradient H2 ppbv GEOS-CHEM H2 simulation vs. CMDL observations 600 550 500 450 400 Spring Summer Autumn Winter Winter % Bias: 1.25 R: 0.67 Spring % Bias: 0.70 R: 0.56 -90 -50 0 50 90 Latitude GEOS-CHEM H2 ppbv Fall % Bias: -0.86 R: 0.71 Summer % Bias: 0.71 R: 0.80 400 450 500 550 600 CMDL H2 ppbv

  7. H2 Seasonal Cycle Barrow (89-03) Bermuda(91-03) Mauna Loa(89-03) 650 600 550 500 450 400 Northern Hemisphere Southern Hemisphere CMDL observations H2 ppbv Model 32.4 N, 64.7 W 19.5 N, 155.6 W 71.3 N,156.6 W 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 Month Month Month Ascension (89-03) Cape Grim(91-03) Palmer Station(94-03) 650 600 550 500 450 400 H2 ppbv 7.9 S, 14.4 W 40.7 S, 144.7 E 64.9 S, 64.0 W 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 2 4 6 8 10 12 Month Month Month

  8. H2 Vertical Profiles Nov 2002-Aug 2004 Poker Flat, Alaska 65.07N, -147.29W Cook Islands -21.25S, –159.83W Park Falls, Wisc. 45.93N,-90.27W March April May 4 2 0 Soil Sept Oct Nov Model Observations km km 4 2 0 km 400 500 600 400 500 600 400 500 600 H2 (ppbv) H2 (ppbv) H2 (ppbv)

  9. Adding hydrogen isotope (HD) to the GEOS-CHEM model • Model development based on measured ratios of HD/H2 for various sources, sinks, and reservoirs • Will give additional constraint to the H2 budget sources and sinks • Determine the contributions of sources and sinks • to atmospheric dD and interhemispheric gradient (Gerst & Quay, 2000, 2001)

  10. Deuterium Source & Sink Signatures δD of the global Troposphere = 130 %o Term H2 Tg/yr dD%oa Fossil Fuels 20 -196 Biomass Burning 10 -293 Biofuels 4.4 -293 Methane Oxidation 28 156 BVOC Oxidation 14 156 OH Sink 17 0.601 Soil Sink 60 0.943 Soil, fossil fuel, and biomass burning fractionation: Gerst & Quay, 2001 OH fractionation: Ehhalt et al., 1989

  11. Surface H2 and dD Annual dD H2 ppbv dD (%0)SMOW JJA

  12. Biofuels & Fossil Fuels DJF dD Model, Surface & Cruise Observations Barrow Cheeka Peak 1998,2002,2004 Ocean Cruise Observations dD (%0 vs SMOW)

  13. Additional enrichment from Stratosphere? dD vs. Latitude dD (atmos) asinks ~40 %0 gradient dD Observational Data from Rice & Quay, 2004 and Gerst, & Quay, 2001.

  14. Summary • GEOS-CHEM captures well the H2 and dD latitudinal gradient (H2~40ppbv, dD~40%o) and seasonality. • Soil Sink uncertainty: incorporate soil moisture, precipitation, to better constrain soil deposition • Next, help explain the dD observations of stratospheric enrichment (Röckmann et al., 2003; Rahn et al., 2003) • Could dD measurements • be used to constrain • Asian biofuel emissions? Fossil Fuels Biofuel + Fossil Fuel Biomass Burning DJF dD

More Related