Black carbon indirect radiative effects in a climate model

Cherian, Ribu; Quaas, Johannes; Salzmann, Marc; Tomassini, Lorenzo

doi:10.1080/16000889.2017.1369342

Cited by 27 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The uncertainties in the ERF are due to the strong natural variations in the model meteorology, which ultimately causes variations in CDNC, cloud cover, surface albedo, and, possibly, energy transport into the Arctic. Similar uncertainties in Arctic ERF have also been reported in other studies (Cherian et al, 2017). Our model does not account for snow albedo changes due to BC deposition.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

“…The potential of BC mitigation to achieve a slowing of Arctic warming on a relatively short timescale has been discussed widely in the literature (Quinn et al, 2011;Bond et al, 2013;Jiao et al, 2014;Samset and Myhre, 2015;AMAP, 2015;Cherian et al, 2017). BC is a good candidate for this very important goal because of its strong interaction with solar radiation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effects of black carbon mitigation on Arctic climate

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We use the ECHAM-HAMMOZ aerosol-climate model to assess the effects of black carbon (BC) mitigation measures on Arctic climate. To this end we constructed several mitigation scenarios that implement all currently existing legislation and then implement further reductions of BC in a successively increasing global area, starting from the eight member states of the Arctic Council, expanding to its active observer states, then to all observer states, and finally to the entire globe. These scenarios also account for the reduction of the co-emitted organic carbon (OC) and sulfate (SU). We find that, even though the additional BC emission reductions in the member states of the Arctic Council are small, the resulting reductions in Arctic BC mass burdens can be substantial, especially in the lower troposphere close to the surface. This in turn means that reducing BC emissions only in the Arctic Council member states can reduce BC deposition in the Arctic by about 30 % compared to the current legislation, which is about 60 % of what could be achieved if emissions were reduced globally. Emission reductions further south affect Arctic BC concentrations at higher altitudes and thus only have small additional effects on BC deposition in the Arctic. The direct radiative forcing scales fairly well with the total amount of BC emission reduction, independent of the location of the emission source, with a maximum direct radiative forcing in the Arctic of about −0.4 W m−2 for a global BC emission reduction. On the other hand, the Arctic effective radiative forcing due to the BC emission reductions, which accounts for aerosol–cloud interactions, is small compared to the direct aerosol radiative forcing. This happens because BC- and OC-containing particles can act as cloud condensation nuclei, which affects cloud reflectivity and lifetime and counteracts the direct radiative forcing of BC. Additionally, the effective radiative forcing is accompanied by very large uncertainties that originate from the strong natural variability of meteorology, cloud cover, and surface albedo in the Arctic. We further used the TM5-FASST model to assess the benefits of the aerosol emission reductions for human health. We found that a full implementation in all Arctic Council member and observer states could reduce the annual global number of premature deaths by 329 000 by the year 2030, which amounts to 9 % of the total global premature deaths due to particulate matter.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of black carbon mitigation on Arctic climate

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The potential of BC mitigation to achieve a slowing of Arctic warming on a relatively short time scale has been discussed widely in the literature (Quinn et al, 2011;Bond et al, 2013;Jiao et al, 2014;Samset and Myhre, 2015;AMAP, 2015;Cherian et al, 2017). BC is a good candidate for this very important goal because of its strong interaction with solar radiation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Black Carbon Mitigation on Arctic Climate

Kühn¹,

Kupiainen²,

Miinalainen³

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. We use the aerosol-climate model ECHAM-HAMMOZ to assess the effects of black carbon (BC) mitigation measures on Arctic climate. To this end we constructed several mitigation scenarios that implement all currently existing legislation and then implement further reductions of BC in a successively increasing global area, starting from the eight member states of the Arctic Council, expanding to its active observer states, then to all observer states, and finally to the entire globe. These scenarios also account for the reduction of the co-emitted organic carbon (OC) and sulphate (SU). We find that, even though the additional BC emission reductions in the member states of the Arctic Council are small, the resulting reductions in Arctic BC mass burdens can be substantial, especially in the lower atmosphere close to the surface. This in turn means that reducing BC emissions only in the Arctic Council member states can reduce BC deposition in the Arctic by about 30&#8201;% compared to the current legislation, which is about 60&#8201;% of what could be achieved if emissions were reduced globally. Emission reductions further south affect Arctic BC concentrations at higher altitudes and thus only have small additional effects on BC deposition in the Arctic. The direct radiative forcing scales fairly well with the total amount of BC emission reduction, independent of the location of the emission source, with a maximum direct radiative forcing in the Arctic of about 0.4&#8201;W/m2 for a global BC emission reduction. On the other hand, the Arctic effective radiative forcing due to the BC emission reductions, which accounts for aerosol-cloud interactions, is small compared to the direct aerosol radiative forcing. This happens because BC and OC containing particles can act as cloud condensation nuclei, which affects cloud reflectivity and lifetime, and counter-acts the direct radiative forcing of BC. Additionally the effective radiative forcing is accompanied by very large uncertainties that origin from the strong natural variability of meteorology, cloud cover, and surface albedo in the Arctic. We further used the model TM5-FASST to assess the benefits of the aerosol emission reductions on human health. We found that a full implementation in all Arctic Council member and observer states could reduce the annual global amount of premature deaths by 339&#8201;000 by 2030.

show abstract

“…In Koch et al (), they estimated the mean REaci of biofuel soot (black and organic carbon) to be −0.11 W m −2 based on six global models. In Cherian et al (), they estimated the BC indirect effects to be −0.13 W m −2 using the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI‐M) Earth System model (MPI‐ESM).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impacts of Aerosol Dry Deposition on Black Carbon Spatial Distributions and Radiative Effects in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5

Liu

Zhang

et al. 2018

J Adv Model Earth Syst

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dry deposition is an important process affecting the lifetime and spatial distributions of atmospheric aerosols. Black carbon (BC) plays an important role in the Earth's climate, but is subject to large bias in remote regions in model simulations. In this study, to improve the BC simulations, the scheme of Petroff and Zhang (2010) (PZ10) is implemented into the Community Atmospheric Model version 5 (CAM5), and model simulations using PZ10 are compared with the one using the default scheme of Zhang et al. (2001) (Z01) and observations. The PZ10 scheme predicts much lower dry deposition velocity (V d ) than Z01 for fine particles in Aitken, primary carbon, and accumulation modes, resulting in 73.0% lower of global mean BC dry deposition fluxes and 23.2% higher of global mean BC column burdens. CAM5 with PZ10 increases modeled BC concentrations at all altitudes and latitudes compared to Z01, which improves the agreement with observations of BC profiles in the lower troposphere in the Arctic. It also improves the simulation of surface BC concentrations in high-latitudes remote regions and its seasonality in the Arctic. The global annual mean radiative effects due to aerosol-radiation interactions (REari) and aerosol-cloud interactions (REaci) of BC from the CAM5 experiment using Z01 are 0.61 6 0.007 and 20.11 6 0.02 W m 22 , respectively, compared to slightly larger REari (0.75 6 0.01 W m 22 ) and REaci (-0.14 6 0.02 W m 22 ) from CAM5 using PZ10. The results suggest that Brownian diffusion efficiency is a key factor for the predictions of V d , which requires better representation in the global climate models. Key Points:A newly -developed aerosol dry deposition scheme is implemented in CAM5 Lower dry deposition velocities for fine particles results in higher BC concentrations globally Modeled surface BC concentrations and its seasonality in the Arctic and Antarctic is improved Supporting Information:Supporting Information S1 -L., et al. (2018). Impacts of aerosol dry deposition on black carbon spatial distributions and radiative effects in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5.

show abstract

Black carbon indirect radiative effects in a climate model

Cited by 27 publications

References 40 publications

Effects of black carbon mitigation on Arctic climate

Effects of black carbon mitigation on Arctic climate

Effects of Black Carbon Mitigation on Arctic Climate

Impacts of Aerosol Dry Deposition on Black Carbon Spatial Distributions and Radiative Effects in the Community Atmosphere Model CAM5

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About