Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Comparing Models of NO x Chemistry in Asia Tracey Holloway, Columbia University MICS-Asia Workshop 2001.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Comparing Models of NO x Chemistry in Asia Tracey Holloway, Columbia University MICS-Asia Workshop 2001."— Presentation transcript:

1 Comparing Models of NO x Chemistry in Asia Tracey Holloway, Columbia University MICS-Asia Workshop 2001

2 Acknowledgements Hiram Levy II, NOAA GFDL Greg Carmichael, University of Iowa Markus Amann and TAP Project, IIASA Meredith Galanter, Larry Horowitz, Mahesh Phadnis Support from DoD, NASA, Princeton Univ., GFDL

3 Outline Model Overview Comparing with Observations Regional Lagrangian vs. Global Eulerian ATMOS-N Results

4 ATMOS: Model Overview Lagrangian, forward 1 o x 1 o resolution NCEP winds (1990) NCEP precipitation Vertical motion by “puff splitting” Linear chemistry only, non-interacting puffs

5 ATMOS-N Model Chemistry Fossil Fuel, Biomass Burning, Biogenic

6 Fossil Fuel Emissions in Asia kTon NO 2 /grid-yr (IIASA, Van Ardenne)

7 Model vs. Observations, I Observations from Dentener and Crutzen, 1994 Annual Wet HNO 3 Deposition (mg N/m 2 -yr)

8 Model vs. Observations, II Annual Wet HNO 3 Deposition (mg N/m 2 -yr) Observations from Fujita et al., 2000

9 Model vs. Aircraft Obs Sept.-Oct. Feb.-Mar. Tropical W. Pac.Mid-lat. W. Pac. ATMOS OBS GFDL GCTM

10 GCTM: Model Overview Global, Eulerian 11 vertical layers, variable resolution ~2.5 o x 2.5 o at mid- latitutes GCM-generated winds/precipitation, “typical” year Off-line chemistry—same scheme as ATMOS

11 Deposition Budgets in 2 Models (kTon N/yr)GCTM, Asia FF % EmissionATMOS, Asia FF % Emission Fossil Fuel Emissions Wet HNO 3 Dep %177536% Dry HNO 3 Dep %129826% Dry NO x Dep 4597%2786% Dry PAN Dep 1462%1122% Total NO y Dep %346370%

12 GCTM vs. ATMOS-N Annual Wet HNO 3 Deposition (meq/m 2 -yr) Global, EulerianRegional, Lagrangian

13 ATMOS-N vs. GCTM, at sites ATMOS OBS GFDL GCTM Both models too low in wet HNO 3 deposition, but ATMOS lower.

14 ATMOS-N vs. GCTM, [HNO 3 ] Surface Free Trop. (~685 mb)

15 Summary: Model Evaluation Overall correct “ballpark” but… Wet HNO 3 deposition too low vs. obs Disagreement greatest at “downwind” sites Upper Trop. NO x too low in summer Although GCTM is also too low in wet HNO 3 deposition, ATMOS-N is lower Not enough lateral spreading Too much dry deposition … All trace back to the vertical transport in ATMOS-N…

16 China Impacts Winter Summer % wet HNO 3 deposition due to fossil fuel emissions in China relative to all Asia fossil fuel emissions

17 India Impacts WinterSummer

18 Japan Impacts WinterSummer

19 Transfer Matrix for HNO 3 TAIWJAPANN KORS KORCHINAINDIA TAIW 80%2% JAPAN 1%65%1%4% N KOR 3%34%7%1% S KOR 12%20%63% CHINA 18% 46%26%90% INDIA 1%6%95% FROM… TO…

20 Relative Nitrate Burden Total= Total S + Total NO 3 - (meq/m 2 /yr) % NO 3 -

21 Summary: Regional Transfer of HNO 3 Significant Transfer within east Asia, and from India to west China China contributes 18% to total nitrate deposition (wet + dry) in Japan, 46% to North Korea, 26% to South Korea Most exchange in winter, when winds are stronger, precipitation less NO x much more localized due to shorter lifetime Nitrate contributes 30-50% of total acidification over much of Japan, but less than 20% over much of east China.


Download ppt "Comparing Models of NO x Chemistry in Asia Tracey Holloway, Columbia University MICS-Asia Workshop 2001."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google