Sulfate Aerosol in the Arctic: Source Attribution and Radiative Forcing

Yang, Yang; Wang, Hailong; Smith, Steve; Easter, Richard C.; Rasch, Philip J.

doi:10.1002/2017jd027298

Cited by 46 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The AA is smallest during summer for all the climate drivers (Figure , upper rightmost panel). That amplification is weakest during Arctic summer is well documented elsewhere: in studies based on realistic historical or future scenarios with emission changes in both greenhouse gases and aerosols (Acosta Navarro et al, ; Laîné et al, ; Screen et al, ), in single‐perturbation experiments of, for example, SO 4 (Yang et al, ) or CO 2 (Yoshimori et al, ), and in observations (Graversen et al, ). The positive ice albedo feedback is strongest in spring and summer but is counteracted by strong energy uptake by the Arctic ocean (Laîné et al, ), as well as by an increase in evaporation (Acosta Navarro et al, ; Laîné et al, ) and potentially also cloud responses (Crook et al, ; Yoshimori et al, ).…”

Section: Arctic Temperature Responses To Global Perturbationsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Arctic Amplification Response to Individual Climate Drivers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Arctic is experiencing rapid climate change in response to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and other climate drivers. Emission changes in general, as well as geographical shifts in emissions and transport pathways of short‐lived climate forcers, make it necessary to understand the influence of each climate driver on the Arctic. In the Precipitation Driver Response Model Intercomparison Project, 10 global climate models perturbed five different climate drivers separately (CO2, CH4, the solar constant, black carbon, and SO4). We show that the annual mean Arctic amplification (defined as the ratio between Arctic and the global mean temperature change) at the surface is similar between climate drivers, ranging from 1.9 (± an intermodel standard deviation of 0.4) for the solar to 2.3 (±0.6) for the SO4 perturbations, with minimum amplification in the summer for all drivers. The vertical and seasonal temperature response patterns indicate that the Arctic is warmed through similar mechanisms for all climate drivers except black carbon. For all drivers, the precipitation change per degree global temperature change is positive in the Arctic, with a seasonality following that of the Arctic amplification. We find indications that SO4 perturbations produce a slightly stronger precipitation response than the other drivers, particularly compared to CO2.

show abstract

Section: Arctic Temperature Responses To Global Perturbationsmentioning

confidence: 73%

Arctic Amplification Response to Individual Climate Drivers

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Given also the overestimation of SO 2 emissions in western United States in CMIP6 emissions data set, the cooling effect of changes in non-U.S. emissions on radiation may have overwhelmed warming effects over western United States due to U.S. emission decreases. In addition, the coarse-resolution model simulation may not capture aerosol concentrations where small-scale topography is complex (Yang et al, 2018), but this is less likely to influence results at the continent-scale level (Liu et al, 2016;Ma et al, 2015).…”

Section: 1029/2018ef000859mentioning

confidence: 99%

Source Apportionments of Aerosols and Their Direct Radiative Forcing and Long‐Term Trends Over Continental United States

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to U.S. air pollution regulations, aerosol and precursor emissions have decreased during recent decades, while changes in emissions in other regions of the world also influence U.S. aerosol trends through long‐range transport. We examine here the relative roles of these domestic and foreign emission changes on aerosol concentrations and direct radiative forcing at the top of the atmosphere over the continental United States. Long‐term (1980–2014) trends and aerosol source apportionment are quantified in this study using a global aerosol‐climate model equipped with an explicit aerosol source tagging technique. Due to U.S. emission control policies, the annual mean near‐surface concentration of particles, consisting of sulfate, black carbon, and primary organic aerosol, decreases by about −1.1 (±0.1)/−1.4 (±0.1) μg/m3 in western United States and −3.3 (±0.2)/−2.9 (±0.2) μg/m3 in eastern United States during 2010–2014, as compared to those in 1980–1984. Meanwhile, decreases in U.S. emissions lead to a warming of +0.48 (±0.03)/+0.46 (±0.03) W/m2 in western United States and +1.41 (±0.07)/+1.32 (±0.09) W/m2 in eastern United States through changes in aerosol direct radiative forcing. Increases in emissions from East Asia generally have a modest impact on U.S. air quality but mitigated the warming effect induced by reductions in U.S. emissions by 25% in western United States and 7% in eastern United States. As U.S. domestic aerosol and precursor emissions continue to decrease, foreign emissions may become increasingly important to radiative forcing over the United States.

show abstract

“…Because satellite sensors are less sensitive to concentrations in the lower atmosphere, the uncertainty due to incomplete knowledge of emission height will translate to an additional, and as of yet, unquantified uncertainty in satellite retrieval results, particularly for SO 2 . This may be a factor in the model-satellite SO 2 discrepancy seen in China by Yang, Wang, Smith, Easter, et al (2017) and Yang, Wang, Smith, Easter, and Rasch (2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Impact of Anthropogenic Emission Injection Height Uncertainty on Global Sulfur Dioxide and Aerosol Distribution

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anthropogenic sulfur compounds play an important role in acid deposition, aerosol particle formation, and subsequent radiative forcing and human fine particulate exposure. There are substantial uncertainties in processes influencing sulfate and precursor distributions, however, that have not yet been resolved through comparisons with observations. We find here an underappreciated factor that has a large impact on model results: uncertain emission height. Global aerosol‐climate model simulations indicate that the assumed effective anthropogenic emission height is very important to SO2 near‐surface concentrations and vertical profile. The global range of near‐surface SO2 concentration over land (ocean) due to uncertainty in industrial (international shipping) emission injection height is 81% (76%), relative to the average concentration. This sensitivity is much larger than the uncertainty of SO2 emission rates. Black carbon and primary organic matter concentration and profiles are also sensitive to emission heights (53% over land and 28% over oceans). The impact of emission height uncertainty is larger in winter for land‐based emissions, but larger in summer over the Northern Hemisphere ocean for shipping emissions. The variation in aerosol optical depth related to shipping emission injection heights is 11% over oceans, revealing the potential importance of injection height on aerosol forcing and climatic effects. The large impact on SO2 concentrations can confound attempts to use surface, aircraft, and satellite observations to constrain the importance of other processes that govern sulfur compound distributions in the atmosphere. The influence of emission height on vertical SO2 column also will impact the accuracy of satellite retrievals.

show abstract

Sulfate Aerosol in the Arctic: Source Attribution and Radiative Forcing

Cited by 46 publications

References 68 publications

Arctic Amplification Response to Individual Climate Drivers

Arctic Amplification Response to Individual Climate Drivers

Source Apportionments of Aerosols and Their Direct Radiative Forcing and Long‐Term Trends Over Continental United States

Impact of Anthropogenic Emission Injection Height Uncertainty on Global Sulfur Dioxide and Aerosol Distribution

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About