4.3 Article

Comparison of Spheroidal Carbonaceous Particle Data with Modelled Atmospheric Black Carbon Concentration and Deposition and Air Mass Sources in Northern Europe, 1850-2010

期刊

ADVANCES IN METEOROLOGY
卷 2013, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2013/393926

关键词

-

资金

  1. Arctic Doctoral Programme ARKTIS of the University of Lapland
  2. CRAICC
  3. Academy of Finland Center of Excellence Program [1118615]
  4. Academy of Finland [257903]
  5. Norwegian Research Council within the project Climate and Health Impacts of Short-Lived Atmospheric Components (SLAC)
  6. Academy of Finland (AKA) [257903, 257903] Funding Source: Academy of Finland (AKA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Spheroidal carbonaceous particles (SCP) are a well-defined fraction of black carbon (BC), produced only by the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels such as coal and oil. Their past concentrations have been studied using environmental archives, but, additionally, historical trends of BC concentration and deposition can be estimated by modelling. These models are based on BC emission inventories, but actual measurements of BC concentration and deposition play an essential role in their evaluation and validation. We use the chemistry transport model OsloCTM2 to model historical time series of BC concentration and deposition from energy and industrial sources and compare these to sedimentary measurements of SCPs obtained from lake sediments in Northern Europe from 1850 to 2010. To determine the origin of SCPs we generated back trajectories of air masses to the study sites. Generally, trends of SCP deposition and modelled results agree reasonably well, showing rapidly increasing values from 1950, to a peak in 1980, and a decrease towards the present. Empirical SCP data show differences in deposition magnitude between the sites that are not captured by the model but which may be explained by different air mass transport patterns. The results highlight the need for numerous observational records to reliably validate model results.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据