23
Nitrogen deposition on regional and global scales: a multi-model evaluation F.J. Dentener 1 , J. Drevet 2 , D.S. Stevenson 3 , K. Ellingsen 4 , T.P.C. van Noije 5 , M.G. Schultz 6 , C.S. Atherton 7 , N. Bell 8 , T. Butler 9 , B. Eickhout 10 , A.M. Fiore 11 , J. Galloway 12 , C. Galy-Lacaux 13 , U.C. Kulshresta 14 , J.-F. Lamarque 15 , V. Montanaro 16 , J.-F. Müller 17 , J.M. Rodriguez 18 , M.G. Sanderson 19 , N.H. Savage 20 , S. Szopa 21 , K. Sudo 22 , O. Wild 22 , G. Zeng 20 1. JRC, Ispra, Italy. 2. EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. University of Edinburgh, UK 4. University of Oslo, Norway. 5. KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands. 6. MPI-Met, Hamburg, Germany. 7. LLNL, Livermore, USA. 8. NASA-GISS, New York, USA. 9. MPI-Chem, Mainz, Germany. 10. RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands 11. NOAA GFDL, Princeton, USA. 12. University of Virginia, USA. 13. Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, France.

ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

  • Upload
    jaunie

  • View
    31

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

- PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Nitrogen deposition on regional and global scales:

a multi-model evaluation F.J. Dentener1, J. Drevet2, D.S. Stevenson3, K. Ellingsen4, T.P.C. van Noije5, M.G. Schultz6, C.S. Atherton7, N. Bell8, T. Butler9, B. Eickhout10, A.M. Fiore11,

J. Galloway12, C. Galy-Lacaux13, U.C. Kulshresta14, J.-F. Lamarque15, V. Montanaro16, J.-F. Müller17, J.M. Rodriguez18, M.G. Sanderson19, N.H. Savage20, S. Szopa21,

K. Sudo22, O. Wild22, G. Zeng20

1. JRC, Ispra, Italy. 2. EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland. 3. University of Edinburgh, UK 4. University of Oslo, Norway. 5. KNMI, De Bilt, The Netherlands. 6. MPI-Met, Hamburg, Germany. 7. LLNL, Livermore, USA.

8. NASA-GISS, New York, USA. 9. MPI-Chem, Mainz, Germany. 10. RIVM, Bilthoven, The Netherlands 11. NOAA GFDL, Princeton, USA. 12. University of Virginia, USA. 13. Observatoire Midi-Pyrénées, France.

14. Indian Institute of Chemical Technology, Hyderabad, India. 15. NCAR, Boulder, USA. 16. Università L'Aquila, Italy. 17. IASB, Brussels, Belgium. 18. GEST, Washington, DC, USA. 19. Met Office, UK.

20. University of Cambridge, UK. 21. LSCE, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. 22. FRSGC JAMSTEC, Yokohama, Japan.

Page 2: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

• Focus on 2030 – of direct interest to policymakers• Go beyond radiative forcing: also consider ozone AQ, N-

and S-deposition, and the use of satellite data to evaluate models

• Present-day base case for evaluation:– S1: 2000

• Consider three 2030 emissions scenarios:– S2: 2030 IIASA CLE (‘likely’)– S3: 2030 IIASA MFR (‘optimistic’)– S4: 2030 SRES A2 (‘pessimistic’)

• Also consider the effect of climate change:– S5: 2030 CLE + imposed 2030 climate

Future changes in composition related to emissions1 year runsFuture changes in composition related to climate change5-10 year runs

Page 3: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Global NOx emission scenarios

0.0

40.0

80.0

120.0

160.0

200.0

1990 2000 2010 2020 2030

Europe North AmericaAsia + Oceania Latin America

Africa + Middle East Maximum Feasible Reduction (MFR)

SRES A2 - World Total SRES B2 - World Total

Figure 1. Projected development of IIASA anthropogenic NOx emissions by SRES world region (Tg NO2 yr-1).

CLE

SRES A2

MFR

2000 2030

Page 4: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Other emissions categories

• EDGAR3.2 ship emissions, and assumed 1.5%/yr growth in all scenarios

• Biomass burning emissions from van der Werf et al. (2003) – assumed these remained fixed to 2030 in all scenarios

• Aircraft emissions from IPCC(1999)• Modellers used their own natural emissions

• Specified fixed global CH4 for each case (from earlier transient runs)

Page 5: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Requested model diagnostics

• Monthly mean, full 3-D – O3, NO, NO2, CO, OH, …

– O3 budget terms

– CH4 + OH

– NOy, NHx and SOx deposition fluxes

– T, Q, etc. for climate change runs

• Daily NO2 column (GOME comparison)

• Hourly surface O3 (for AQ analysis)

• NETCDF files submitted to central database

Page 6: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

26 Participating Models• CHASER_CTM• CHASER_GCM• FRSGC/UCI• GEOS-CHEM• GISS• GMI/CCM3• GMI/DAO• GMI/GISS• IASB• LLNL-IMPACT• LMDz/INCA-CTM• LMDz/INCA-GCM• MATCH-MPIC/ECMWF

• MATCH-MPIC/NCEP • MOZ2-GFDL• MOZART4• MOZECH• MOZECH2• p-TOMCAT• STOCHEM-HadAM3• STOCHEM-HadGEM• TM4• TM5• UIO_CTM2• ULAQ• UM_CAM

CTMs driven by analyses

CTMs driven by GCM outputCTMs coupled to GCMs

Page 7: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Mean model NOy wet dep (obs. overlain circles)

Page 8: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Mean model v Obs. HNO3 Wet dep.

EUROPE N. AMERICA

E. ASIAAFRICA

Page 9: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Taylor plots, HNO3 wet dep

Page 10: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Mean model NHx wet dep (obs. overlain circles)

Page 11: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Mean model v Obs. NH4 Wet dep.

EUROPE N. AMERICA

E. ASIAAFRICA

Page 12: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Taylor plots, NH4 wet dep

Page 13: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Different model resolutions

1°x1° 3°x3°

5°x5°Meanmodel

Page 14: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

0.0000

0.1000

0.2000

0.3000

0.4000

0.5000

0.6000

0.7000

0.8000

Ratio of wet to total NOy deposition

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

Page 15: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

0

0.1

0.2

0.30.4

0.5

0.60.7

0.8

0.91

Ratio of HNO3/NO3 to NOy deposition

S1

S2

S3

S4

S5

Page 16: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Ratio wet to total deposition

00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

GE

OS

-CH

EM

NC

AR

ST

OC

HE

D

TM

4

TM

5

ST

OC

HE

M_H

adGE

M

GF

DL

S1

S2

S4

S5

Ratio wet:total NHx deposition

Page 17: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Changes in NOy dep 2000-2030,

under 3 scenarios

IIASA CLE

IIASA MFR

SRES A2

Page 18: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Changes in NHx dep 2000-2030,

under 2 scenarios

IIASA CLE

SRES A2

Page 19: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

NO Em ission and NOy deposition per region

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

CA

NA

DA

US

A

CE

NT

RA

L AM

ER

ICA

SO

UT

H A

ME

RIC

A

NO

RT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

WE

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

EA

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

SO

UT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

EA

ST

ER

N E

UR

OP

E

FO

RM

ER

US

SR

MID

DLE

EA

ST

SO

UT

H A

SIA

EA

ST

AS

IA

SO

UT

H E

AS

T A

SIA

OC

EA

NIA

JAP

AN

GR

EE

NLA

ND

OC

EA

N

mg

N/m

2/ye

ar

Emission

Deposition

Annual NO emission & NOy deposition (per unit area) by region(mean model)

Page 20: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

NH3 Em iss ion and NHxdeposition per region

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

CA

NA

DA

US

A

CE

NT

RA

L A

ME

RIC

A

SO

UT

H A

ME

RIC

A

NO

RT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

WE

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

EA

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

SO

UT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

EA

ST

ER

N E

UR

OP

E

FO

RM

ER

US

SR

MID

DL

E E

AS

T

SO

UT

H A

SIA

EA

ST

AS

IA

SO

UT

H E

AS

T A

SIA

OC

EA

NIA

JA

PA

N

GR

EE

NL

AN

D

OC

EA

N

mg

N/m

2/y

ea

r

Emission

Deposition

Annual NH3 emission & NHx deposition (per unit area) by region(mean model)

Page 21: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Fractional NOy deposition

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

CA

NA

DA

US

A

CE

NT

RA

L A

ME

RIC

A

SO

UT

H A

ME

RIC

A

NO

RT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

WE

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

EA

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

SO

UT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

EA

ST

ER

N E

UR

OP

E

FO

RM

ER

US

SR

MID

DL

E E

AS

T

SO

UT

H A

SIA

EA

ST

AS

IA

SO

UT

H E

AS

T A

SIA

OC

EA

NIA

JA

PA

N

OC

EA

N

NH

SH

Wo

rld

Nat. Vegetation

Agriculture/urban

Soil/desert

Water/ice

Fraction of NOy deposition to natural vegetation, agriculture/urban, soil/desert, and water/ice

Page 22: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

Fractional NHx deposition

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

CA

NA

DA

US

A

CE

NT

RA

L A

ME

RIC

A

SO

UT

H A

ME

RIC

A

NO

RT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

WE

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

EA

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

SO

UT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

EA

ST

ER

N E

UR

OP

E

FO

RM

ER

US

SR

MID

DL

E E

AS

T

SO

UT

H A

SIA

EA

ST

AS

IA

SO

UT

H E

AS

T A

SIA

OC

EA

NIA

JA

PA

N

OC

EA

N

NH

SH

Wo

rld

Nat. Vegetation

Agriculture/urban

Soil/desert

Water/ice

Fraction of NHx deposition to natural vegetation, agriculture/urban, soil/desert, and water/ice

Page 23: ACCENT intercomparison (Expt. 2)

% of natural vegetation with Nr dep > 1 g N/m2/yr

Fraction Nr deposition in excess of 1 g/m2/yearon natural ecosystems

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

CA

NA

DA

US

A

CE

NT

RA

L A

ME

RIC

A

SO

UT

H A

ME

RIC

A

NO

RT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

WE

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

EA

ST

ER

N A

FR

ICA

SO

UT

HE

RN

AF

RIC

A

OE

CD

EU

RO

PE

EA

ST

ER

N E

UR

OP

E

FO

RM

ER

US

SR

MID

DL

E E

AS

T

SO

UT

H A

SIA

EA

ST

AS

IA

SO

UT

H E

AS

T A

SIA

OC

EA

NIA

JA

PA

N

NH

SH

WO

RL

D

%

S1

S2

S3

S4