Methane Mitigation:Methods to Reduce Emissions, on the Path to the Paris Agreement

The atmospheric methane burden is increasing rapidly, contrary to pathways compatible with the goals of the 2015 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Paris Agreement. Urgent action is required to bring methane back to a pathway more in line with the Paris goals. Emission reduction from “tractable” (easier to mitigate) anthropogenic sources such as the fossil fuel industries and landfills is being much facilitated by technical advances in the past decade, which have radically improved our ability to locate, identify, quantify, and reduce emissions. Measures to reduce emissions from “intractable” (harder to mitigate) anthropogenic sources such as agriculture and biomass burning have received less attention and are also becoming more feasible, including removal from elevated-methane ambient air near to sources. The wider effort to use microbiological and dietary intervention to reduce emissions from cattle (and humans) is not addressed in detail in this essentially geophysical review. Though they cannot replace the need to reach “net-zero” emissions of CO2, significant reductions in the methane burden will ease the timescales needed to reach required CO2 reduction targets for any particular future temperature limit. There is no single magic bullet, but implementation of a wide array of mitigation and emission reduction strategies could substantially cut the global methane burden, at a cost that is relatively low compared to the parallel and necessary measures to reduce CO2, and thereby reduce the atmospheric methane burden back toward pathways consistent with the goals of the Paris Agreement

Northern Eurasia Future Initiative (NEFI): facing the challenges and pathways of global change in the twenty-first century

During the past several decades, the Earth system has changed significantly, especially across Northern Eurasia. Changes in the socio-economic conditions of the larger countries in the region have also resulted in a variety of regional environmental changes that can have global consequences. The Northern Eurasia Future Initiative (NEFI) has been designed as an essential continuation of the Northern Eurasia Earth Science Partnership Initiative (NEESPI), which was launched in 2004. NEESPI sought to elucidate all aspects of ongoing environmental change, to inform societies and, thus, to better prepare societies for future developments. A key principle of NEFI is that these developments must now be secured through science-based strategies co-designed with regional decision-makers to lead their societies to prosperity in the face of environmental and institutional challenges. NEESPI scientific research, data, and models have created a solid knowledge base to support the NEFI program. This paper presents the NEFI research vision consensus based on that knowledge. It provides the reader with samples of recent accomplishments in regional studies and formulates new NEFI science questions. To address these questions, nine research foci are identified and their selections are briefly justified. These foci include warming of the Arctic; changing frequency, pattern, and intensity of extreme and inclement environmental conditions; retreat of the cryosphere; changes in terrestrial water cycles; changes in the biosphere; pressures on land use; changes in infrastructure; societal actions in response to environmental change; and quantification of Northern Eurasia’s role in the global Earth system. Powerful feedbacks between the Earth and human systems in Northern Eurasia (e.g., mega-fires, droughts, depletion of the cryosphere essential for water supply, retreat of sea ice) result from past and current human activities (e.g., large-scale water withdrawals, land use, and governance change) and potentially restrict or provide new opportunities for future human activities. Therefore, we propose that integrated assessment models are needed as the final stage of global change assessment. The overarching goal of this NEFI modeling effort will enable evaluation of economic decisions in response to changing environmental conditions and justification of mitigation and adaptation efforts

Mesoscale modeling of smoke transport from equatorial Southeast Asian Maritime Continent to the Philippines: First comparison of ensemble analysis with in situ observations

Atmospheric transport of smoke from equatorial Southeast Asian Maritime Continent (Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia) to the Philippines was recently verified by the first‐ever measurement of aerosol composition in the region of the Sulu Sea from a research vessel named Vasco. However, numerical modeling of such transport can have large uncertainties due to the lack of observations for parameterization schemes and for describing fire emission and meteorology in this region. These uncertainties are analyzed here, for the first time, with an ensemble of 24 Weather Research and Forecasting model with Chemistry (WRF‐Chem) simulations. The ensemble reproduces the time series of observed surface nonsea‐salt PM2.5 concentrations observed from the Vasco vessel during 17–30 September 2011 and overall agrees with satellite (Cloud‐Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) and Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)) and Aerosol Robotic Network (AERONET) data. The difference of meteorology between National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP’s) Final (FNL) and European Center for Medium range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF’s) ERA renders the biggest spread in the ensemble (up to 20 μg m−3 or 200% in surface PM2.5), with FNL showing systematically superior results. The second biggest uncertainty is from fire emissions; the 2 day maximum Fire Locating and Modelling of Burning Emissions (FLAMBE) emission is superior than the instantaneous one. While Grell‐Devenyi (G3) and Betts‐Miller‐Janjić cumulus schemes only produce a difference of 3 μg m−3 of surface PM2.5 over the Sulu Sea, the ensemble mean agrees best with Climate Prediction Center (CPC) MORPHing (CMORPH)’s spatial distribution of precipitation. Simulation with FNL‐G3, 2 day maximum FLAMBE, and 800 m injection height outperforms other ensemble members. Finally, the global transport model (Navy Aerosol Analysis and Prediction System (NAAPS)) outperforms all WRF‐Chem simulations in describing smoke transport on 20 September 2011, suggesting the challenges to model tropical meteorology at mesoscale and finer scale.Plain Language SummaryIt is well known that smoke particles from fires in Indonesia, Singapore, and Malaysia can affect each other’s air quality. Less known and surely not well documented is the transport of smoke particles from these countries to the Philippines. Here we use the first‐ever measurements took nearby the coastal of the Philippines to analyze an ensemble of 24 WRF‐Chem simulations of smoke transport. Because of persistent cloud cover and the complexity of meteorology, mesoscale modeling of smoke transport in these regions normally has large uncertainties. We show these uncertainties are caused first by meteorology and then by fire emissions. We further show that models with finer resolution not necessarily produce better results.Key PointsFirst mesoscale modeling of smoke transport from equatorial Southeast Asian Maritime Continent to the PhilippinesEnsemble analysis of modeling uncertainties with first‐ever measurement of aerosol composition data in the region of the Sulu SeaMeteorological initial and boundary conditions, not cumulus parametrization and fire emission, have the largest uncertainty in the simulationPeer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137624/1/jgrd53809_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/137624/2/jgrd53809.pd

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

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

Planning for an unknown future: incorporating meteorological uncertainty into predictions of the impact of fires and dust on US particulate matter

2019 Summer.Includes bibliographical references.Exposure to particulate matter (PM) pollution has well documented health impacts and is regulated by the United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In the U.S. wildfire smoke and wind-blown dust are significant natural sources of PM pollution. This dissertation shows how the environmental conditions that drive wildfires and wind-blown dust are likely to change in the future and what these changes imply for future PM concentrations. The first component of this dissertation shows how human ignitions and environmental conditions influence U.S. wildfire activity. Using wildfire burn area and ignition data, I find that in both the western and southeastern U.S., annual lightning- and human-ignited wildfire burn area have similar relationships with key environmental conditions (temperature, relative humidity, and precipitation). These results suggest that burn area for human- and lightning-ignited wildfires will be similarly impacted by climate change. Next, I quantify how the environmental conditions that drive wildfire activity are likely to change in the future under different climate scenarios. Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) models agree that western U.S. temperatures will increase in the 21st century for representative concentration pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5. I find that averaged over seasonal and regional scales, other environmental variables demonstrated to be relevant to fuel flammability and aridity, such as precipitation, evaporation, relative humidity, root zone soil moisture, and wind speed, can be used to explain historical variability in wildfire burn area as well or better than temperature. My work demonstrates that when objectively selecting environmental predictors using Lasso regression, temperature is not always selected, but that this varies by western U.S. ecoregion. When temperature is not selected, the sign and magnitude of future changes in burn area become less certain, highlighting that predicted changes in burn area are sensitive to the environmental predictors chosen to predict burn area. Smaller increases in future wildfire burn area are estimated whenever and wherever the importance of temperature as a predictor is reduced. The second component of this dissertation examines how environmental conditions that drive fine dust emissions and concentrations in the southwestern U.S. change in the future. I examine environmental conditions that influence dust emissions including, temperature, vapor pressure deficit, relative humidity, precipitation, soil moisture, wind speed, and leaf area index (LAI). My work quantifies fine dust concentrations in the U.S. southwest dust season, March through July, using fine iron as a dust proxy, quantified with measurements from the Interagency Monitoring of PROtected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) network between 1995 and 2015. I show that the largest contribution to the spread in future dust concentration estimates comes from the choice of environmental predictor used to explain observed variability. The spread between different environmental predictor estimates can be larger than the spread between climate scenarios or intermodel spread. Based on linear estimates of how dust concentrations respond to changes in LAI, CMIP5 estimated increases in LAI would result in reduced dust concentrations in the future. However, when I objectively select environmental predictors of dust concentrations using Lasso regression, LAI is not selected in favor of other variables. When using a linear combination of objectively selected environmental variables, I estimate that future southwest dust season mean concentrations will increase by 0.24 μg m−3 (12%) by the end of the 21st century for RCP 8.5. This estimated increase in fine dust concentration is driven by decreases in relative humidity, precipitation, soil moisture, and buffered by decreased wind speeds

Global fire emissions estimates during 1997-2016

Climate, land use, and other anthropogenic and natural drivers have the potential to influence fire dynamics in many regions. To develop a mechanistic understanding of the changing role of these drivers and their impact on atmospheric composition, long-term fire records are needed that fuse information from different satellite and in situ data streams. Here we describe the fourth version of the Global Fire Emissions Database (GFED) and quantify global fire emissions patterns during 1997-2016. The modeling system, based on the Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach (CASA) biogeochemical model, has several modifications from the previous version and uses higher quality input datasets. Significant upgrades include (1) new burned area estimates with contributions from small fires, (2) a revised fuel consumption parameterization optimized using field observations, (3) modifications that improve the representation of fuel consumption in frequently burning landscapes, and (4) fire severity estimates that better represent continental differences in burning processes across boreal regions of North America and Eurasia. The new version has a higher spatial resolution (0.25) and uses a different set of emission factors that separately resolves trace gas and aerosol emissions from temperate and boreal forest ecosystems. Global mean carbon emissions using the burned area dataset with small fires (GFED4s) were 2.21015 grams of carbon per year (Pg Cyr-1) during 1997-2016, with a maximum in 1997 (3.0 Pg C yr-1) and minimum in 2013 (1.8 Pg C yr-1). These estimates were 11% higher than our previous estimates (GFED3) during 1997-2011, when the two datasets overlapped. This net increase was the result of a substantial increase in burned area (37 %), mostly due to the inclusion of small fires, and a modest decrease in mean fuel consumption (-19 %) to better match estimates from field studies, primarily in savannas and grasslands. For trace gas and aerosol emissions, differences between GFED4s and GFED3 were often larger due to the use of revised emission factors. If small fire burned area was excluded (GFED4 without the s for small fires), average emissions were 1.5 Pg C yr-1. The addition of small fires had the largest impact on emissions in temperate North America, Central America, Europe, and temperate Asia. This small fire layer carries substantial uncertainties; improving these estimates will require use of new burned area products derived from high-resolution satellite imagery. Our revised dataset provides an internally consistent set of burned area and emissions that may contribute to a better understanding of multi-decadal changes in fire dynamics and their impact on the Earth system. GFED data are available from http://www.globalfiredata.org

Model evaluation of short-lived climate forcers for the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme: a multi-species, multi-model study

While carbon dioxide is the main cause for global warming, modeling short-lived climate forcers (SLCFs) such as methane, ozone, and particles in the Arctic allows us to simulate near-term climate and health impacts for a sensitive, pristine region that is warming at 3 times the global rate. Atmospheric modeling is critical for understanding the long-range transport of pollutants to the Arctic, as well as the abundance and distribution of SLCFs throughout the Arctic atmosphere. Modeling is also used as a tool to determine SLCF impacts on climate and health in the present and in future emissions scenarios. In this study, we evaluate 18 state-of-the-art atmospheric and Earth system models by assessing their representation of Arctic and Northern Hemisphere atmospheric SLCF distributions, considering a wide range of different chemical species (methane, tropospheric ozone and its precursors, black carbon, sulfate, organic aerosol, and particulate matter) and multiple observational datasets. Model simulations over 4 years (2008–2009 and 2014–2015) conducted for the 2022 Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) SLCF assessment report are thoroughly evaluated against satellite, ground, ship, and aircraft-based observations. The annual means, seasonal cycles, and 3-D distributions of SLCFs were evaluated using several metrics, such as absolute and percent model biases and correlation coefficients. The results show a large range in model performance, with no one particular model or model type performing well for all regions and all SLCF species. The multi-model mean (mmm) was able to represent the general features of SLCFs in the Arctic and had the best overall performance. For the SLCFs with the greatest radiative impact (CH4, O3, BC, and SO), the mmm was within ±25 % of the measurements across the Northern Hemisphere. Therefore, we recommend a multi-model ensemble be used for simulating climate and health impacts of SLCFs. Of the SLCFs in our study, model biases were smallest for CH4 and greatest for OA. For most SLCFs, model biases skewed from positive to negative with increasing latitude. Our analysis suggests that vertical mixing, long-range transport, deposition, and wildfires remain highly uncertain processes. These processes need better representation within atmospheric models to improve their simulation of SLCFs in the Arctic environment. As model development proceeds in these areas, we highly recommend that the vertical and 3-D distribution of SLCFs be evaluated, as that information is critical to improving the uncertain processes in models.Assessments from the Russian ship-based campaign were performed with the support of RFBR project no. 20-55-12001 and according to the development program of the Interdisciplinary Scientific and Educational School of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University “Future Planet and Global Environmental Change”. Development of the methodology for aethalometric data treatment was supported by RSF project no. 19-77-30004. The BC observations on R/V Mirai were supported by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology (MEXT), Japan (Arctic Challenge for Sustainability (ArCS) project). Contributions by SMHI were funded by the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency under contract NV-03174-20 and the Swedish Climate and Clean Air Research program (SCAC) as well as partly by the Swedish National Space Board (NORD-SLCP, grant agreement ID: 94/16) and the EU Horizon 2020 project Integrated Arctic Observing System (INTAROS, grant agreement ID: 727890). Work on ACE-FTS analysis was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). Julia Schmale received funding from the Swiss National Science Foundation (project no. 200021_188478). Duncan Watson-Parris received funding from NERC projects NE/P013406/1 (A-CURE) and NE/S005390/1 (ACRUISE) as well as funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program iMIRACLI under Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement no. 860100. LATMOS has been supported by the EU iCUPE (Integrating and Comprehensive Understanding on Polar Environments) project (grant agreement no. 689443) under the European Network for Observing our Changing Planet (ERA-Planet), as well as access to IDRIS HPC resources (GENCI allocation A009017141) and the IPSL mesoscale computing center (CICLAD: Calcul Intensif pour le CLimat, l’Atmosphère et la Dynamique) for model simulations. Naga Oshima was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI (grant nos. JP18H03363, JP18H05292, and JP21H03582), the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (grant nos. JPMEERF20202003 and JPMEERF20205001) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan, the Arctic Challenge for Sustainability II (ArCS II) under program grant no. JPMXD1420318865, and a grant for the Global Environmental Research Coordination System from the Ministry of the Environment, Japan (MLIT1753). The research with GISS-E2.1 has been supported by the Aarhus University Interdisciplinary Centre for Climate Change (iClimate) OH fund (no. 2020-0162731), the FREYA project funded by the Nordic Council of Ministers (grant agreement nos. MST-227-00036 and MFVM-2019-13476), and the EVAM-SLCF funded by the Danish Environmental Agency (grant agreement no. MST-112-00298). Jesper Christensen (for DEHM model) received funding from the Danish Environmental Protection Agency (DANCEA funds for Environmental Support to the Arctic Region project; grant no. 2019-7975). Maria Sand has been supported by the Research Council of Norway (grant 315195, ACCEPT).Peer Reviewed"Article signat per més de 50 autors/es: Cynthia H. Whaley, Rashed Mahmood, Knut von Salzen, Barbara Winter, Sabine Eckhardt, Stephen Arnold, Stephen Beagley, Silvia Becagli, Rong-You Chien, Jesper Christensen, Sujay Manish Damani, Xinyi Dong, Konstantinos Eleftheriadis, Nikolaos Evangeliou, Gregory Faluvegi, Mark Flanner, Joshua S. Fu, Michael Gauss, Fabio Giardi, Wanmin Gong, Jens Liengaard Hjorth, Lin Huang, Ulas Im, Yugo Kanaya, Srinath Krishnan, Zbigniew Klimont, Thomas Kühn, Joakim Langner, Kathy S. Law, Louis Marelle, Andreas Massling, Dirk Olivié, Tatsuo Onishi, Naga Oshima, Yiran Peng, David A. Plummer, Olga Popovicheva, Luca Pozzoli, Jean-Christophe Raut, Maria Sand, Laura N. Saunders, Julia Schmale, Sangeeta Sharma, Ragnhild Bieltvedt Skeie, Henrik Skov, Fumikazu Taketani, Manu A. Thomas, Rita Traversi, Kostas Tsigaridis, Svetlana Tsyro, Steven Turnock, Vito Vitale, Kaley A. Walker, Minqi Wang, Duncan Watson-Parris, and Tahya Weiss-Gibbons "Postprint (published version