4.8 Article

Tropospheric ozone trends at Mauna Loa Observatory tied to decadal climate variability

Journal

NATURE GEOSCIENCE
Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 136-143

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/NGEO2066

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NOAA's Cooperative Institute for Climate Science at Princeton University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A potent greenhouse gas and biological irritant, tropospheric ozone is also the primary source of atmospheric hydroxyl radicals, which remove numerous hazardous trace gases from the atmosphere. Tropospheric ozone levels have increased in spring at remote sites in the mid-latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere over the past few decades; this increase has been attributed to a growth in Asian precursor emissions. In contrast, 40 years of continuous measurements at Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii reveal little change in tropospheric ozone levels during spring (March-April), but a rise in autumn (September-October). Here we examine the contribution of decadal shifts in atmospheric circulation patterns to variability in tropospheric ozone levels at Mauna Loa using a suite of chemistry-climate model simulations. We show that the flow of ozone-rich air from Eurasia towards Hawaii during spring weakened in the 2000s as a result of La-Nina-like decadal cooling in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean. During autumn, in contrast, the flow of ozone-rich air from Eurasia to Hawaii strengthened in the mid-1990s onwards, coincident with the positive phase of the Pacific-North American pattern. We suggest that these shifts in atmospheric circulation patterns can reconcile observed trends in tropospheric ozone levels at Mauna Loa and the northern mid-latitudes in recent decades. We conclude that decadal variability in atmospheric circulation patterns needs to be considered when attributing observed changes in tropospheric ozone levels to human-induced trends in precursor emissions.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available