Sensitivity of CO simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 33

Sensitivity of CO simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 50 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

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.

Download Presentation

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.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


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

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Tropospheric co concentrations depend on

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


Budget of co emissions in tg yr used in simulations in brunner et al 2003

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


Brunner et al ut ls inappropriate description of mixing at tropopause tropopause

Brunner et al. (UT/LS): Inappropriate description of mixing at tropopause tropopause

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


However brunner et al 2003 also reported significant offsets

However: Brunner et al. 2003 also reported significant offsets

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


New study poberaj et al comparison with spurt

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Comparison with SPURT data: (UT/) LS over Europe

15 Feb 2003

16 Feb 2003

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

No model allows for good representation of both, tropospheric and stratospheric measurements

SPURT February 2003

Scatter plots: CO

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Hemisphericview on simulated CO:

MOZAIC profiles at airports

OSLO CTM2 (QUANTIFY preliminary)

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Hemisphericview on simulated CO:

MOZAIC profiles at airports

OSLO CTM2 (QUANTIFY final)

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Hemisphericview on simulated CO:

MOZAIC profiles at airports

OSLO CTM2 (POET emissions)

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Time series of co mozaic measurements for europe i was 2003 exceptional

Time series of CO-MOZAIC measurements for Europe I: Was 2003 exceptional ?

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Time series of co mozaic measurements for europe ii was 2003 exceptional

Time series of CO-MOZAIC measurements for Europe II: Was 2003 exceptional ?

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Time series of CO-MOZAIC measurements for USA: Was 2003 exceptional ?

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Time series of co mozaic measurements for asia was 2003 exceptional

Time series of CO-MOZAIC measurements for Asia: Was 2003 exceptional ?

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Tropospheric co concentrations spurt mozaic and simulations

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


Comparison with emissions inventory used by brunner et al 2003 tradeoff

Comparison with emissions inventory used by Brunner et al. 2003 (“TRADEOFF”)

QUANT finalTRADEOFF *

- Road traffic220650

+ domestic burning

- Biomass burning700745

- Vegetation + soil0200

- Total emissions9651550

  • 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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

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


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Hemispheric view on simulated CO:

MOZAIC profiles at airports

pTOMCAT T42

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Hemispheric view on simulated CO:

MOZAIC profiles at airports

TM4

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Hemispheric view on simulated CO:

MOZAIC profiles at airports

?

LMDZ

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Hemispheric view on simulated CO:

MOZAIC profiles at airports

E5-MESSy

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


Sensitivity of co simulated in global chemistry models on emissions inventories

Hemispheric view on simulated CO:

MOZAIC profiles at airports

?

MOCAGE

QUANTIFY AC3 workshop, August 2008, Cambride


  • Login