How emissions, climate, and land use change will impact mid-century air quality over the United States: a focus on effects at national parks

Martin, Maria Val; Heald, Colette L.; Lamarque, Jean‐François; Tilmes, Simone; Emmons, L. K.; Schichtel, B. A.

doi:10.5194/acp-15-2805-2015

Cited by 115 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Two main strategies of land-based climate change mitigation are commonly discussed for CDR: growth of bioenergy crops in combination with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), and avoided deforestation in combination with afforestation and reforestation (ADAFF) (Humpenöder et al, 2014;van Vuuren et al, 2013;Williamson, 2016). BECCS involves the planting of bioenergy crops or trees, which are burned in power stations or converted to biofuels, and the released CO 2 being captured for long-term underground storage in geological reservoirs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Land management for carbon storage is discussed as being indispensable for climate change mitigation because of its large potential to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and to avoid further emissions from deforestation. However, the acceptance and feasibility of land-based mitigation projects depends on potential side effects on other important ecosystem functions and their services. Here, we use projections of future land use and land cover for different land-based mitigation options from two land-use models (IMAGE and MAgPIE) and evaluate their effects with a global dynamic vegetation model (LPJ-GUESS). In the landuse models, carbon removal was achieved either via growth of bioenergy crops combined with carbon capture and storage, via avoided deforestation and afforestation, or via a combination of both. We compare these scenarios to a reference scenario without land-based mitigation and analyse the LPJ-GUESS simulations with the aim of assessing synergies and trade-offs across a range of ecosystem service indicators: carbon storage, surface albedo, evapotranspiration, water runoff, crop production, nitrogen loss, and emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds.In our mitigation simulations cumulative carbon storage by year 2099 ranged between 55 and 89 GtC. Other ecosystem service indicators were influenced heterogeneously both positively and negatively, with large variability across regions and land-use scenarios. Avoided deforestation and afforestation led to an increase in evapotranspiration and enhanced emissions of biogenic volatile organic compounds, and to a decrease in albedo, runoff, and nitrogen loss. Crop production could also decrease in the afforestation scenarios as a result of reduced crop area, especially for MAgPIE land-use patterns, if assumed increases in crop yields cannot be realized. Bioenergy-based climate change mitigation was projected to affect less area globally than in the forest expansion scenarios, and resulted in less pronounced changes in most ecosystem service indicators than forest-based mitigation, but included a possible decrease in nitrogen loss, crop production, and biogenic volatile organic compounds emissions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Embedding tropospheric chemistry within a GCM (CCMs and chemistry GCMs) opens up the possibility of studying a large range of Earth system feedbacks, such as climatedependent biogenic emissions (Sanderson et al, 2003;Hauglustaine et al, 2005;Hedegaard et al, 2008Hedegaard et al, , 2013Heald et al, 2009;Young et al, 2009;Ganzeveld et al, 2010), vegetation-ozone interactions (Sitch et al, 2007), as well as the impacts of climate change on tropospheric chemistry (e.g., Johnson et al, 1999;Zeng andPyle, 2003, 2005;John et al, 2012;Doherty et al, 2013;Val Martin et al, 2015) and air quality (see Table S3 of Fiore et al (2015) for examples).…”

Section: Atmospheric Chemistry In Global Climate Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Assessment of global-scale model performance for global and regional ozone distributions, variability, and trends

Young

Naik

Fiore

et al. 2018

Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene

Self Cite

256

274

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The goal of the Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report (TOAR) is to provide the research community with an up-to-date scientific assessment of tropospheric ozone, from the surface to the tropopause. While a suite of observations provides significant information on the spatial and temporal distribution of tropospheric ozone, observational gaps make it necessary to use global atmospheric chemistry models to synthesize our understanding of the processes and variables that control tropospheric ozone abundance and its variability. Models facilitate the interpretation of the observations and allow us to make projections of future tropospheric ozone and trace gas distributions for different anthropogenic or natural perturbations. This paper assesses the skill of current-generation global atmospheric chemistry models in simulating the observed present-day tropospheric ozone distribution, variability, and trends. Drawing upon the results of recent international multi-model intercomparisons and using a range of model evaluation techniques, we demonstrate that global chemistry models are broadly skillful in capturing the spatio-temporal variations of tropospheric ozone over the seasonal cycle, for extreme pollution episodes, and changes over interannual to decadal periods. However, models are consistently biased high in the northern hemisphere and biased low in the southern hemisphere, throughout the depth of the troposphere, and are unable to replicate particular metrics that define the longer term trends in tropospheric ozone as derived from some background sites. When the models compare unfavorably against observations, we discuss the potential causes of model biases and propose directions for future developments, including improved evaluations that may be able to better diagnose the root cause of the model-observation disparity. Overall, model results should be approached critically, including determining whether the model performance is acceptable for the problem being addressed, whether biases can be tolerated or corrected, whether the model is appropriately constituted, and whether there is a way to satisfactorily quantify the uncertainty.

show abstract

“…Wildfire smoke can be transported over thousands of kilometers, and exposure to wildfire smoke has significant impacts on human health (Künzli et al, 2006;Rappold et al, 2011;Elliott et al, 2013). While US emissions of most major air pollutants are declining (Pinder et al, 2008), increasing fire activity suggests that wildfires may have a greater relative impact on US air quality in the future (Val Martin et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changes in ozone and precursors during two aged wildfire smoke events in the Colorado Front Range in summer 2015

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The relative importance of wildfire smoke for air quality over the western US is expected to increase as the climate warms and anthropogenic emissions decline. We report on in situ measurements of ozone (O 3 ), a suite of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), and reactive oxidized nitrogen species collected during summer 2015 at the Boulder Atmospheric Observatory (BAO) in Erie, CO. Aged wildfire smoke impacted BAO during two distinct time periods during summer 2015: 6-10 July and 16-30 August. The smoke was transported from the Pacific Northwest and Canada across much of the continental US. Carbon monoxide and particulate matter increased during the smoke-impacted periods, along with peroxyacyl nitrates and several VOCs that have atmospheric lifetimes longer than the transport timescale of the smoke. During the August smokeimpacted period, nitrogen dioxide was also elevated during the morning and evening compared to the smoke-free periods. There were nine empirically defined high-O 3 days during our study period at BAO, and two of these days were smoke impacted. We examined the relationship between O 3 and temperature at BAO and found that for a given temperature, O 3 mixing ratios were greater (∼ 10 ppbv) during the smoke-impacted periods. Enhancements in O 3 during the August smoke-impacted period were also observed at two long-term monitoring sites in Colorado: Rocky Mountain National Park and the Arapahoe National Wildlife Refuge near Walden, CO. Our data provide a new case study of how aged wildfire smoke can influence atmospheric composition at an urban site, and how smoke can contribute to increased O 3 abundances across an urban-rural gradient.

show abstract

How emissions, climate, and land use change will impact mid-century air quality over the United States: a focus on effects at national parks

Cited by 115 publications

References 66 publications

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

Global consequences of afforestation and bioenergy cultivation on ecosystem service indicators

Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report: Assessment of global-scale model performance for global and regional ozone distributions, variability, and trends

Changes in ozone and precursors during two aged wildfire smoke events in the Colorado Front Range in summer 2015

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About