Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models

Aerosols have important impacts on air quality and climate, but the processes affecting their removal from the atmosphere are not fully understood and are poorly constrained by observations. This makes modelled aerosol lifetimes uncertain. In this study, we make use of an observational constraint...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: N. I. Kristiansen, A. Stohl, D. J. L. Olivié, B. Croft, O. A. Søvde, H. Klein, T. Christoudias, D. Kunkel, S. J. Leadbetter, Y. H. Lee, K. Zhang, K. Tsigaridis, T. Bergman, N. Evangeliou, H. Wang, P.-L. Ma, R. C. Easter, P. J. Rasch, X. Liu, G. Pitari, G. Di Genova, S. Y. Zhao, Y. Balkanski, S. E. Bauer, G. S. Faluvegi, H. Kokkola, R. V. Martin, J. R. Pierce, M. Schulz, D. Shindell, H. Tost, H. Zhang
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Copernicus Publications 2016-03-01
Series:Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Online Access:https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3525/2016/acp-16-3525-2016.pdf
id doaj-bb97a6271008432986181bdd339e455e
record_format Article
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author N. I. Kristiansen
A. Stohl
D. J. L. Olivié
B. Croft
O. A. Søvde
H. Klein
T. Christoudias
D. Kunkel
S. J. Leadbetter
Y. H. Lee
K. Zhang
K. Tsigaridis
T. Bergman
N. Evangeliou
N. Evangeliou
H. Wang
P.-L. Ma
R. C. Easter
P. J. Rasch
X. Liu
G. Pitari
G. Di Genova
S. Y. Zhao
Y. Balkanski
S. E. Bauer
G. S. Faluvegi
H. Kokkola
R. V. Martin
J. R. Pierce
J. R. Pierce
M. Schulz
D. Shindell
H. Tost
H. Zhang
spellingShingle N. I. Kristiansen
A. Stohl
D. J. L. Olivié
B. Croft
O. A. Søvde
H. Klein
T. Christoudias
D. Kunkel
S. J. Leadbetter
Y. H. Lee
K. Zhang
K. Tsigaridis
T. Bergman
N. Evangeliou
N. Evangeliou
H. Wang
P.-L. Ma
R. C. Easter
P. J. Rasch
X. Liu
G. Pitari
G. Di Genova
S. Y. Zhao
Y. Balkanski
S. E. Bauer
G. S. Faluvegi
H. Kokkola
R. V. Martin
J. R. Pierce
J. R. Pierce
M. Schulz
D. Shindell
H. Tost
H. Zhang
Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
author_facet N. I. Kristiansen
A. Stohl
D. J. L. Olivié
B. Croft
O. A. Søvde
H. Klein
T. Christoudias
D. Kunkel
S. J. Leadbetter
Y. H. Lee
K. Zhang
K. Tsigaridis
T. Bergman
N. Evangeliou
N. Evangeliou
H. Wang
P.-L. Ma
R. C. Easter
P. J. Rasch
X. Liu
G. Pitari
G. Di Genova
S. Y. Zhao
Y. Balkanski
S. E. Bauer
G. S. Faluvegi
H. Kokkola
R. V. Martin
J. R. Pierce
J. R. Pierce
M. Schulz
D. Shindell
H. Tost
H. Zhang
author_sort N. I. Kristiansen
title Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models
title_short Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models
title_full Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models
title_fullStr Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models
title_sort evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models
publisher Copernicus Publications
series Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
issn 1680-7316
1680-7324
publishDate 2016-03-01
description Aerosols have important impacts on air quality and climate, but the processes affecting their removal from the atmosphere are not fully understood and are poorly constrained by observations. This makes modelled aerosol lifetimes uncertain. In this study, we make use of an observational constraint on aerosol lifetimes provided by radionuclide measurements and investigate the causes of differences within a set of global models. During the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant accident of March 2011, the radioactive isotopes cesium-137 (<sup>137</sup>Cs) and xenon-133 (<sup>133</sup>Xe) were released in large quantities. Cesium attached to particles in the ambient air, approximately according to their available aerosol surface area. <sup>137</sup>Cs size distribution measurements taken close to the power plant suggested that accumulation-mode (AM) sulfate aerosols were the main carriers of cesium. Hence, <sup>137</sup>Cs can be used as a proxy tracer for the AM sulfate aerosol's fate in the atmosphere. In contrast, the noble gas <sup>133</sup>Xe behaves almost like a passive transport tracer. Global surface measurements of the two radioactive isotopes taken over several months after the release allow the derivation of a lifetime of the carrier aerosol. We compare this to the lifetimes simulated by 19 different atmospheric transport models initialized with identical emissions of <sup>137</sup>Cs that were assigned to an aerosol tracer with each model's default properties of AM sulfate, and <sup>133</sup>Xe emissions that were assigned to a passive tracer. We investigate to what extent the modelled sulfate tracer can reproduce the measurements, especially with respect to the observed loss of aerosol mass with time. Modelled <sup>137</sup>Cs and <sup>133</sup>Xe concentrations sampled at the same location and times as station measurements allow a direct comparison between measured and modelled aerosol lifetime. The e-folding lifetime <i>τ</i><sub>e</sub>, calculated from station measurement data taken between 2 and 9 weeks after the start of the emissions, is 14.3 days (95 % confidence interval 13.1–15.7 days). The equivalent modelled <i>τ</i><sub>e</sub> lifetimes have a large spread, varying between 4.8 and 26.7 days with a model median of 9.4 ± 2.3 days, indicating too fast a removal in most models. Because sufficient measurement data were only available from about 2 weeks after the release, the estimated lifetimes apply to aerosols that have undergone long-range transport, i.e. not for freshly emitted aerosol. However, modelled instantaneous lifetimes show that the initial removal in the first 2 weeks was quicker (lifetimes between 1 and 5 days) due to the emissions occurring at low altitudes and co-location of the fresh plume with strong precipitation. Deviations between measured and modelled aerosol lifetimes are largest for the northernmost stations and at later time periods, suggesting that models do not transport enough of the aerosol towards the Arctic. The models underestimate passive tracer (<sup>133</sup>Xe) concentrations in the Arctic as well but to a smaller extent than for the aerosol (<sup>137</sup>Cs) tracer. This indicates that in addition to too fast an aerosol removal in the models, errors in simulated atmospheric transport towards the Arctic in most models also contribute to the underestimation of the Arctic aerosol concentrations.
url https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3525/2016/acp-16-3525-2016.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT nikristiansen evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT astohl evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT djlolivie evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT bcroft evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT oasøvde evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT hklein evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT tchristoudias evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT dkunkel evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT sjleadbetter evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT yhlee evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT kzhang evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT ktsigaridis evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT tbergman evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT nevangeliou evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT nevangeliou evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT hwang evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT plma evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT rceaster evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT pjrasch evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT xliu evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT gpitari evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT gdigenova evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT syzhao evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT ybalkanski evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT sebauer evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT gsfaluvegi evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT hkokkola evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT rvmartin evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT jrpierce evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT jrpierce evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT mschulz evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT dshindell evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT htost evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
AT hzhang evaluationofobservedandmodelledaerosollifetimesusingradioactivetracersofopportunityandanensembleof19globalmodels
_version_ 1716825502723866624
spelling doaj-bb97a6271008432986181bdd339e455e2020-11-24T20:41:20ZengCopernicus PublicationsAtmospheric Chemistry and Physics1680-73161680-73242016-03-01163525356110.5194/acp-16-3525-2016Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global modelsN. I. Kristiansen0A. Stohl1D. J. L. Olivié2B. Croft3O. A. Søvde4H. Klein5T. Christoudias6D. Kunkel7S. J. Leadbetter8Y. H. Lee9K. Zhang10K. Tsigaridis11T. Bergman12N. Evangeliou13N. Evangeliou14H. Wang15P.-L. Ma16R. C. Easter17P. J. Rasch18X. Liu19G. Pitari20G. Di Genova21S. Y. Zhao22Y. Balkanski23S. E. Bauer24G. S. Faluvegi25H. Kokkola26R. V. Martin27J. R. Pierce28J. R. Pierce29M. Schulz30D. Shindell31H. Tost32H. Zhang33NILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, NorwayNILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, NorwayNorwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, NorwayDepartment of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, CanadaCenter for International Climate and Environmental Research – Oslo (CICERO), Oslo, NorwayNorwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, NorwayThe Cyprus Institute, Nicosia, CyprusInstitute for Atmospheric Physics, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, GermanyMet Office, Exeter, UKEarth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USAPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USACenter for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USAFinnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio, FinlandNILU – Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, NorwayLaboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, FrancePacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USAPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USAPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USAPacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Richland, WA, USADepartment of Atmospheric Science, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY, USAUniversity of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, ItalyUniversity of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, ItalyLaboratory for Climate Studies, National Climate Center, Chinese Meteorological Administration, Beijing, ChinaLaboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, Gif-sur-Yvette, FranceCenter for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USACenter for Climate Systems Research, Columbia University, and NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, NY, USAFinnish Meteorological Institute, Kuopio, FinlandDepartment of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, CanadaDepartment of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, CanadaDepartment of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USANorwegian Meteorological Institute, Oslo, NorwayEarth and Ocean Sciences, Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC, USAInstitute for Atmospheric Physics, Johannes Gutenberg University of Mainz, Mainz, GermanyLaboratory for Climate Studies, National Climate Center, Chinese Meteorological Administration, Beijing, ChinaAerosols have important impacts on air quality and climate, but the processes affecting their removal from the atmosphere are not fully understood and are poorly constrained by observations. This makes modelled aerosol lifetimes uncertain. In this study, we make use of an observational constraint on aerosol lifetimes provided by radionuclide measurements and investigate the causes of differences within a set of global models. During the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear power plant accident of March 2011, the radioactive isotopes cesium-137 (<sup>137</sup>Cs) and xenon-133 (<sup>133</sup>Xe) were released in large quantities. Cesium attached to particles in the ambient air, approximately according to their available aerosol surface area. <sup>137</sup>Cs size distribution measurements taken close to the power plant suggested that accumulation-mode (AM) sulfate aerosols were the main carriers of cesium. Hence, <sup>137</sup>Cs can be used as a proxy tracer for the AM sulfate aerosol's fate in the atmosphere. In contrast, the noble gas <sup>133</sup>Xe behaves almost like a passive transport tracer. Global surface measurements of the two radioactive isotopes taken over several months after the release allow the derivation of a lifetime of the carrier aerosol. We compare this to the lifetimes simulated by 19 different atmospheric transport models initialized with identical emissions of <sup>137</sup>Cs that were assigned to an aerosol tracer with each model's default properties of AM sulfate, and <sup>133</sup>Xe emissions that were assigned to a passive tracer. We investigate to what extent the modelled sulfate tracer can reproduce the measurements, especially with respect to the observed loss of aerosol mass with time. Modelled <sup>137</sup>Cs and <sup>133</sup>Xe concentrations sampled at the same location and times as station measurements allow a direct comparison between measured and modelled aerosol lifetime. The e-folding lifetime <i>τ</i><sub>e</sub>, calculated from station measurement data taken between 2 and 9 weeks after the start of the emissions, is 14.3 days (95 % confidence interval 13.1–15.7 days). The equivalent modelled <i>τ</i><sub>e</sub> lifetimes have a large spread, varying between 4.8 and 26.7 days with a model median of 9.4 ± 2.3 days, indicating too fast a removal in most models. Because sufficient measurement data were only available from about 2 weeks after the release, the estimated lifetimes apply to aerosols that have undergone long-range transport, i.e. not for freshly emitted aerosol. However, modelled instantaneous lifetimes show that the initial removal in the first 2 weeks was quicker (lifetimes between 1 and 5 days) due to the emissions occurring at low altitudes and co-location of the fresh plume with strong precipitation. Deviations between measured and modelled aerosol lifetimes are largest for the northernmost stations and at later time periods, suggesting that models do not transport enough of the aerosol towards the Arctic. The models underestimate passive tracer (<sup>133</sup>Xe) concentrations in the Arctic as well but to a smaller extent than for the aerosol (<sup>137</sup>Cs) tracer. This indicates that in addition to too fast an aerosol removal in the models, errors in simulated atmospheric transport towards the Arctic in most models also contribute to the underestimation of the Arctic aerosol concentrations.https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/16/3525/2016/acp-16-3525-2016.pdf