Title Assessment of PM pollution in the Arctic from European sources with the EMEP model (2006)

Transcription

1 Title Assessment of PM pollution in the Arctic from European sources with the EMEP model (2006) MSC-W: presented by Svetlana Tsyro TF HTAP Workshop 1-3 April 2009, St. Petersburg

2 Outline Motivation Methods Results: Model assessment of PM pollution in the Arctic for 2006 from European sources Source attribution Summary / conclusions

3 Arctic Haze Record levels of pollution in the Arctic due to agricultural fires 26 April May 2006 Zeppelin observatory (Spitsbergen) SO 4 & NO 3 < 0.1 µg/m 3 EC = 0.1 µg/m 3 SO 4 = 1.2 µg/m 3 NO 3 = 0.74 µg/m 3 EC = 0.24 µg/m 3

4 Aerosols play an important role in changing Arctic climate BC - airborne and deposited on snow and ice - has particularly high efficacy (large effect on surface T) Eurasian anthropogenic emissions - dominant source in winter-spring Boreal forest fires - important pollution source in summer; warmer climate - more frequent and intensive fires Pollution of Arctic further accelerate warming Temperature increase Decrease of temperature differences between high and lower latitudes Increase pollution transport to Arctic Targeting aerosol sources may give more immediate climate effect compared to CO2 in the Arctic

5 We used EMEP Unified model applied for regional scale EMEP emissions in 2006 of gaseous precursors: and primary particles: SO2, NOx NH3 PPM2.5, PPM10 BC emissions Fine BC (based on EMEP PPM2.5 and EC from Kuppiainen & Klimont, AE, 2006)

6 Emission sources of EC (BC) Residential - wood Residential fossil fuel Forest fires (GFED) Traffic Other mobile

7 How is the model doing for the Arctic? There is presently too little observation data for model evaluation

8 Model performance for Arctic(-ish) sites Bias% Correlation Lat N SO 4 NO 3 NH 4 PM 2.5 PM 10 EC Spitsbergen NO42 78º 54' -63% % % 0.31 EMEP Karasjok NO55 69º 28' -56% % % 0.61 EC/OC Janiskoski RU01 68º 56' -86% % % 0.0 Tustervatn NO15 65º 50' -41% % % 0.52 Kårvatn NO39 62º 47' -35% % % 0.53 Virolahti FI12 60º 31' -24% % % % 0.42 Aspvreten SE12 58º 48' -55% % % 0.38 Birkenes NO01 58º 23' -34% % % % % 0.77 Bias R spatial

9 AOD: sun-photometers satellite (MODIS) Sodankylä (FI) M/O = 0.44 R = 0.56 M/O = 0.34 R = 0.93 Ny-Ålesund (Spitsbergen) M/O = 0.41 R = 0.42 M/O = 0.3 R = 0.42 Hornsund (Spitsbergen) M/O= 0.18 R = 0.47 Red model (M) with fire emissions Blue model (M) w/o fire emissions Black MODIS (Aqua & Terra) (O) Model blue curve (M) Sun photometers red dots (O)

10 What are PM concentration levels? Annual mean in 2006: PM10 PM2.5 PPM25 SIA

11 What is the chemical composition of PM? ng/m PM10 in Arctic SS PPM NH4 NO3 SO Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

12 What is the importance of different sources? Annual mean EC (ng/m3) Residential fossil Residential wood EC source attribution (%) Traffic Other mobile

13 Seasonal source attribution of Primary PM2.5 in the Arctic (north from 66º32 ) ng/m PPM2.5 Arctic rest Traffic off-road Traffic road Heat Fossil Heat Wood 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Anthropogenic emissions from Euroasia in winter-spring: Residential heating (wood) Shipping emissions in summer

14 Variability of the transport to the Arctic Monthly mean PPM2.5 February March April and Trajectory crossing

15 Example: Two days of PPM transport to the Arctic 20 February 7-day trajectories (FLEXTRA) 1 March

16 Source region contributions to the Arctic pollution in % PPM25 12% 18% 9% 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 6% 9% RU NO FI ATL SE GB PL FR NOS DE Rest 38% 19% SIA 4% 4% 4% 2% 5% 9% 2% 8% 5%

17 How important is pollution from forest fires? March April May EC from forest fires June

18 Source attribution of EC: fire effects ng/m EC Arctic Fires rest Traffic off-road Traffic road Heat Fossil Heat Wood 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec NB! Monthly fire emissions from GFED temporal distribution: April-May based on satellite information about the number of fires (Stohl et al. ACP, 2007) Evenly distributed for all other months Remember the photos from Spitsbergen? ng/m EC Svalbard Fires rest Traffic off-road Traffic road Heat Fossil Heat Wood ng/m3 EC Novaya Zemlya Fires rest Traffic off-road Traffic road Heat Fossil Heat Wood Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

19 EC deposition: Effect from fires 27 Apr 29 Apr 2 May EC conc ng/m3 EC fires ng/m3 ECdep fires ug/m2 PM2.5 ug/m3 PM2.5 fires ug/m3 27 Apr (62%) 180 (69%) (74%) 29 Apr (6%) 0.1 (16%) (1%) 2 May (79%) 12 (78%) (59%)

20 What about the inter-annual variability? ng/m PM Relation to NAO index further analyses.. 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Winter NAO PM2.5 ng/m ?

21 Summary / main findings Model assessment of the levels and seasonal variation and chemical composition of aerosol pollution in the Arctic in 2006 due to European sources (Important because of particular sensitivity of Arctic climate to pollution) First estimates of the contribution from European countries (RU, Scandinavia, int. shipping ) First estimates of the contribution from source types (residential heating winter, shipping - summer) Considerable (though episodic) pollution from forest fires in summer Further estimates of relative contributions from European, American and Asian sources with the EMEP global model (POLARCAT project)

22 Thank you for your attention!

23 EC deposition in 2006

24 Source allocation of PM2.5 Episode: 27 April 2006 Anthropogenic Anthropogenic primary (carb) Forest fires