Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Diagnosing the sensitivity of O3 air quality to climate change over the United States Moeko Yoshitomi ([email protected]), Daniel J. Jacob, Loretta J. Mickley, Philippe Le Sager, Julia M. Sygiel, Shiliang Wu Department of Earth & Planetary Sciences Harvard University presented at GCAP Phase 2 Science Team Meeting Harvard University, MA, US October 12th, 2007 Projecting Future O3 Air Quality in the US Δ(2050s-present) in simulated summer daily 8-hr max O3 levels [1] Harvard CTM [Wu et al., 2007] [2] CMU CTM [Racherla and Adams, 2006] O3 [ppb] ・ Many regions show substantial future O3 increases (1-5 ppb) due to climate change ・ Spatial patterns of climate-induced increases in O3 is different - where the highest O3 is predicted - how much O3 increases at a maximum Projecting Future O3 Air Quality in the US Δ(2050s-present) in simulated summer daily 8-hr max O3 levels [1] Harvard CTM [Wu et al., 2007] [2] CMU CTM [Racherla and Adams, 2006] Higher isoprene emissions in SE ⇒ O3 ↑ or ↓??? O3 [ppb] isoprene emission [10e-8 g C/m2/s] Key issue: modeling of the fate of isoprene emissions over the SE [g/s] Uncertain NOx-Isoprene-O3 Chemistry There is a controversial competition on isoprene effects on O3 OH NO Isoprene RO2 k298=1.0x10-10 NO2 O3 ↑ NOx recycled ?? NO RONO2 (isoprene nitrate) branch ratio?? Deposition O3 Products Isoprene k298=1.3x10-17 O3 ↓ O3 ↓ Understanding the Relationship of Surface O3 and Temperature Major Questions from Previous GCAP Research 1. Can we apply observed O3-temperature relationship to validate chemical models used to investigate the sensitivity of surface O3 to climate change? 2. Is the O3-temperature relationship sensitive to assumptions about the fate of isoprene nitrate? Observations Hourly surface O3 concentrations from AIRS/EPA and daily maximum temperatures from NCDC, for JJA 1980-1998, which is gridded at 4x5 Model Simulations [1] GCAP run at 4x5 resolution = GEOS-Chem + calculated GISS GCM meteorology (JJA 1999-2001) [2] GEOS-4 run at 2x2.5 resolution = GEOS-Chem + assimilated GEOS4/GMAO meteorology (JJA 1999-2001) Regression Analysis on O3 and T Data Sets ・ Daily maximum of 8-hr running average O3 concentrations (MDA8) ・ Daily maximum temperature Approach Reduced-major-axis (RMA) linear regression: to allow for errors in both x and y coordinates [For Question 1 & 2] Analyze the relationship in a gridbox-scale [For Question 2] Analyze the relationship in a regional scale (Northeast: 7 boxes, Southeast: 9 boxes, Midwest, Northwest, Southwest, Central, Mid-Atlantic) Observed Correlation between O3 and T From RMA linear regression Slope dO3/dT -10 5 Correlation Coefficient 0 ・ Sensitivity of O3 to temperature varies across the US ・ The NE shows stronger O3/T correlation than the SE 5 10 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 Observed Correlation between O3 and T From RMA linear regression Slope dO3/dT -10 5 Correlation Coefficient 0 ・ Sensitivity of O3 to temperature varies across the US ・ The NE shows stronger O3/T correlation than the SE 5 10 SE -1 -.5 0 NE .5 1 O3 and Temperature Observed by AIRS 150 150 100 100 50 50 MDA8 [ppb] 0 280 300 320 0 280 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 280 300 T max [K] 0 320 280 300 320 300 T max [K] 320 Temperature has an inter-annual variability - 19-yr mean/1988 mean/1992 mean; NE: 300.53/302.14/298.79 [K], SE: 305.92/306.10/305.26 [K] MDA8 [ppb] O3 and Temperature Simulated by GCAP 150 150 100 100 50 50 MDA8 [ppb] 0 280 300 320 0 280 150 150 100 100 50 50 0 280 300 320 0 280 The GCAP results do not vary too much year-to-year 300 320 300 T max [K] 320 NE has stronger O3/T correlation than SE - GCAP O3/T correlations are slightly stronger in both NE and SE than observed O3/T correlations GCAP Model Captures Correlation Trends 1980-1998 obs -1 -.5 1999-2001 GCAP 0 .5 1 ・ Sensitivity of O3 to temperature varies across the US in both obs. and models ・ Both the observations and GCAP show stronger correlation in 1999-2001 GEOS4 the NE than the SE ・ GEOS4 does not show the difference between NE and SE that obs. and GCAP model show GCAP Captures the Variation in dO3/dT Slope Slope of dO3/dT from RMA linear regression 1980-1998 obs -10 5 1999-2001 GCAP 0 5 10 ・ Cool Gulf of Mexico air with lowlevel O3 gives higher slopes in the SE; nothing to do with local chemistry ・ GEOS4 does not show the difference between NE and SE that GCAP shows 1999-2001 GEOS4 My Future Work [Short-term work] ・ Explore reasons for the differences in O3-T correlation between obs. and models - meteorology issue (e.g., difference between GCAP and GEOS4) - missing chemistry (e.g., isoprene sensitivity analysis) ・ Interpret whether the NE-SE contrast reflects transport or chemistry [Long-term work] ・ Estimate the sensitivity of ozone pollution to future global change with our GCAP model for each SRES scenario ・ Investigate effects of 2000-2050 changes in global anthropogenic emissions and in general circulation to the intercontinental transport of air pollutants to the US GCAP Phase 2 Science Team meeting at Maxwell Dworkin 223 GCAP Phase 2 Science Team meeting at Maxwell Dworkin 223 GCAP Phase 2 Science Team meeting at Maxwell Dworkin 223 GCAP Phase 2 Science Team meeting at Maxwell Dworkin 223