4.7 Article

Model evaluation of short-lived climate forcers for the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme: a multi-species, multi-model study

期刊

ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
卷 22, 期 9, 页码 5775-5828

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/acp-22-5775-2022

关键词

-

资金

  1. RFBR [20-55-12001]
  2. RSF [1977-30004]
  3. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan
  4. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency [NV-03174-20]
  5. Swedish Climate and Clean Air Research program (SCAC)
  6. Swedish National Space Board (NORD-SLCP) [94/16]
  7. EU [727890]
  8. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
  9. Swiss National Science Foundation [200021_188478]
  10. NERC [NE/P013406/1, NE/S005390/1]
  11. European Union [860100]
  12. EU iCUPE (Integrating and Comprehensive Understanding on Polar Environments) project under the European Network for Observing our Changing Planet (ERA-Planet) [689443]
  13. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI [JP18H03363, JP18H05292, JP21H03582]
  14. Environment Research and Technology Development Fund of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan [JPMEERF20202003, JPMEERF20205001]
  15. Arctic Challenge for Sustainability II (ArCS II) [JPMXD1420318865]
  16. Ministry of the Environment, Japan [MLIT1753]
  17. Aarhus University Interdisciplinary Centre for Climate Change (iClimate) OH fund [2020-0162731]
  18. Nordic Council of Ministers [MST-227-00036, MFVM-2019-13476]
  19. EVAM-SLCF - Danish Environmental Agency [MST-112-00298]
  20. Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DANCEA funds for Environmental Support to the Arctic Region project) [2019-7975]
  21. Research Council of Norway [315195]
  22. Marie Curie Actions (MSCA) [860100] Funding Source: Marie Curie Actions (MSCA)
  23. Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA) [94/16] Funding Source: Swedish National Space Agency (SNSA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluates the performance of different atmospheric and Earth system models in representing the distribution and impacts of short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) in the Arctic. The results show significant variations in model performance, suggesting the need for a multi-model ensemble approach. The study highlights the importance of improving the representation of uncertain processes in models to enhance the simulation of SLCFs in the Arctic environment.
While carbon dioxide is the main cause for global warming, modeling short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) such as methane, ozone, and particles in the Arctic allows us to simulate near-term climate and health impacts for a sensitive, pristine region that is warming at 3 times the global rate. Atmospheric modeling is critical for understanding the long-range transport of pollutants to the Arctic, as well as the abundance and distribution of SLCFs throughout the Arctic atmosphere. Modeling is also used as a tool to determine SLCF impacts on climate and health in the present and in future emissions scenarios. In this study, we evaluate 18 state-of-the-art atmospheric and Earth system models by assessing their representation of Arctic and Northern Hemisphere atmospheric SLCF distributions, considering a wide range of different chemical species (methane, tropospheric ozone and its precursors, black carbon, sulfate, organic aerosol, and particulate matter) and multiple observational datasets. Model simulations over 4 years (2008-2009 and 2014-2015) conducted for the 2022 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) SLCF assessment report are thoroughly evaluated against satellite, ground, ship, and aircraft-based observations. The annual means, seasonal cycles, and 3-D distributions of SLCFs were evaluated using several metrics, such as absolute and percent model biases and correlation coefficients. The results show a large range in model performance, with no one particular model or model type performing well for all regions and all SLCF species. The multi-model mean (mmm) was able to represent the general features of SLCFs in the Arctic and had the best overall performance. For the SLCFs with the greatest radiative impact (CH4, O-3, BC, and SO42-), the mmm was within +/- 25 % of the measurements across the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore, we recommend a multi-model ensemble be used for simulating climate and health impacts of SLCFs. Of the SLCFs in our study, model biases were smallest for CH4 and greatest for OA. For most SLCFs, model biases skewed from positive to negative with increasing latitude. Our analysis suggests that vertical mixing, long-range transport, deposition, and wildfires remain highly uncertain processes. These processes need better representation within atmospheric models to improve their simulation of SLCFs in the Arctic environment. As model development proceeds in these areas, we highly recommend that the vertical and 3-D distribution of SLCFs be evaluated, as that information is critical to improving the uncertain processes in models.

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

4.7
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