Sensitivity of global CO simulations to uncertainties in biomass burning sources

H. Bian, M. Chin, S. R. Kawa, B. Duncan, Avelino F Arellano, P. Kasibhatla

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

35 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

One of the largest uncertainties for the modeling of tropospheric carbon monoxide (CO) concentration is the timing, location, and magnitude of biomass burning emissions. We investigate the sensitivity of simulated CO in the Unified Chemistry Transport Model (UCTM) to several biomass burning emissions, including four bottom-up and two top-down inventories. We compare the sensitivity experiments with observations from MOPITT, surface and airborne NOAA Global Monitoring Division network data, and the TRACE-P field campaign. The variation of the global annual emissions of these six biomass burning inventories is within 30%; however, their regional variations are often much higher (factor of 2-5). These uncertainties translate to about 6% variation in the global simulated CO but more than a 100% variation in some regions. The annual mean CO variation is greater in the Southern Hemisphere (>12%) than in the Northern Hemisphere (<5%), largely because biomass burning is a higher percentage of the total source in the Southern Hemisphere. Comparisons with CO observations indicate that each model inventory has its strengths and shortcomings, and these regional variations are examined. Overall the model CO concentrations are within the observed range of variability at most stations including Ascension Island, which is strongly influenced by fire emissions. In addition, we discuss the systematic biases that exist in the inventories developed by the similar methodologies and original satellite data.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberD23308
JournalJournal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics
Volume112
Issue number23
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 16 2007
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

biomass burning
Carbon Monoxide
carbon monoxide
Biomass
sensitivity
simulation
Southern Hemisphere
MOPITT
Northern Hemisphere
division
Uncertainty
satellite data
Fires
stations
time measurement
Satellites
methodology
chemistry
Monitoring
monitoring

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geochemistry and Petrology
  • Geophysics
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Space and Planetary Science
  • Atmospheric Science
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
  • Oceanography

Cite this

Sensitivity of global CO simulations to uncertainties in biomass burning sources. / Bian, H.; Chin, M.; Kawa, S. R.; Duncan, B.; Arellano, Avelino F; Kasibhatla, P.

In: Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, Vol. 112, No. 23, D23308, 16.12.2007.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{84a87cdeba33452d92ac86091a77fdff,
title = "Sensitivity of global CO simulations to uncertainties in biomass burning sources",
abstract = "One of the largest uncertainties for the modeling of tropospheric carbon monoxide (CO) concentration is the timing, location, and magnitude of biomass burning emissions. We investigate the sensitivity of simulated CO in the Unified Chemistry Transport Model (UCTM) to several biomass burning emissions, including four bottom-up and two top-down inventories. We compare the sensitivity experiments with observations from MOPITT, surface and airborne NOAA Global Monitoring Division network data, and the TRACE-P field campaign. The variation of the global annual emissions of these six biomass burning inventories is within 30{\%}; however, their regional variations are often much higher (factor of 2-5). These uncertainties translate to about 6{\%} variation in the global simulated CO but more than a 100{\%} variation in some regions. The annual mean CO variation is greater in the Southern Hemisphere (>12{\%}) than in the Northern Hemisphere (<5{\%}), largely because biomass burning is a higher percentage of the total source in the Southern Hemisphere. Comparisons with CO observations indicate that each model inventory has its strengths and shortcomings, and these regional variations are examined. Overall the model CO concentrations are within the observed range of variability at most stations including Ascension Island, which is strongly influenced by fire emissions. In addition, we discuss the systematic biases that exist in the inventories developed by the similar methodologies and original satellite data.",
author = "H. Bian and M. Chin and Kawa, {S. R.} and B. Duncan and Arellano, {Avelino F} and P. Kasibhatla",
year = "2007",
month = "12",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1029/2006JD008376",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "112",
journal = "Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics",
issn = "2169-9380",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "23",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sensitivity of global CO simulations to uncertainties in biomass burning sources

AU - Bian, H.

AU - Chin, M.

AU - Kawa, S. R.

AU - Duncan, B.

AU - Arellano, Avelino F

AU - Kasibhatla, P.

PY - 2007/12/16

Y1 - 2007/12/16

N2 - One of the largest uncertainties for the modeling of tropospheric carbon monoxide (CO) concentration is the timing, location, and magnitude of biomass burning emissions. We investigate the sensitivity of simulated CO in the Unified Chemistry Transport Model (UCTM) to several biomass burning emissions, including four bottom-up and two top-down inventories. We compare the sensitivity experiments with observations from MOPITT, surface and airborne NOAA Global Monitoring Division network data, and the TRACE-P field campaign. The variation of the global annual emissions of these six biomass burning inventories is within 30%; however, their regional variations are often much higher (factor of 2-5). These uncertainties translate to about 6% variation in the global simulated CO but more than a 100% variation in some regions. The annual mean CO variation is greater in the Southern Hemisphere (>12%) than in the Northern Hemisphere (<5%), largely because biomass burning is a higher percentage of the total source in the Southern Hemisphere. Comparisons with CO observations indicate that each model inventory has its strengths and shortcomings, and these regional variations are examined. Overall the model CO concentrations are within the observed range of variability at most stations including Ascension Island, which is strongly influenced by fire emissions. In addition, we discuss the systematic biases that exist in the inventories developed by the similar methodologies and original satellite data.

AB - One of the largest uncertainties for the modeling of tropospheric carbon monoxide (CO) concentration is the timing, location, and magnitude of biomass burning emissions. We investigate the sensitivity of simulated CO in the Unified Chemistry Transport Model (UCTM) to several biomass burning emissions, including four bottom-up and two top-down inventories. We compare the sensitivity experiments with observations from MOPITT, surface and airborne NOAA Global Monitoring Division network data, and the TRACE-P field campaign. The variation of the global annual emissions of these six biomass burning inventories is within 30%; however, their regional variations are often much higher (factor of 2-5). These uncertainties translate to about 6% variation in the global simulated CO but more than a 100% variation in some regions. The annual mean CO variation is greater in the Southern Hemisphere (>12%) than in the Northern Hemisphere (<5%), largely because biomass burning is a higher percentage of the total source in the Southern Hemisphere. Comparisons with CO observations indicate that each model inventory has its strengths and shortcomings, and these regional variations are examined. Overall the model CO concentrations are within the observed range of variability at most stations including Ascension Island, which is strongly influenced by fire emissions. In addition, we discuss the systematic biases that exist in the inventories developed by the similar methodologies and original satellite data.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=38949176722&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=38949176722&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1029/2006JD008376

DO - 10.1029/2006JD008376

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:38949176722

VL - 112

JO - Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics

JF - Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics

SN - 2169-9380

IS - 23

M1 - D23308

ER -