We use the ECHAM-HAMMOZ aerosol-climate model to assess the effects of black carbon (BC) mitigation
measures on Arctic climate. To this end we constructed several mitigation scenarios that implement all currently existing
legislation and then implement further reductions of BC in a
successively increasing global area, starting from the eight member states of the Arctic Council,
expanding to its active observer states, then to all observer states, and finally to the entire globe. These scenarios also account for the reduction of the co-emitted organic carbon (OC) and
sulfate (SU). We find that, even though the additional BC emission reductions in the member states of the Arctic
Council are small, the resulting reductions in Arctic BC mass burdens can be substantial, especially
in the lower troposphere close to the surface. This in turn means that reducing BC emissions only in the Arctic Council member states can reduce
BC deposition in the Arctic by about 30 % compared to the current legislation,
which is about 60 % of what could be achieved if emissions were reduced
globally. Emission reductions further south affect Arctic BC concentrations at higher altitudes and thus
only have small additional effects on BC deposition in the Arctic. The direct radiative forcing scales fairly well with the total amount of BC emission reduction,
independent of the location of the emission source, with a maximum direct radiative forcing
in the Arctic of about -0.4 W m-2 for a global BC emission reduction.
On the other hand, the Arctic effective radiative forcing due to the BC emission reductions,
which accounts for aerosol–cloud interactions, is small compared to the direct aerosol
radiative forcing. This happens because BC- and OC-containing particles can act as cloud condensation
nuclei, which affects cloud reflectivity and lifetime and counteracts the direct radiative
forcing of BC. Additionally, the effective radiative forcing is accompanied by very large uncertainties that
originate from the strong natural variability of meteorology, cloud cover, and surface albedo in the
Arctic. We further used the TM5-FASST model to assess the benefits of the aerosol emission reductions
for human health. We found that a full implementation in all Arctic Council member and observer states could
reduce the annual global number of premature deaths by
329 000 by the year 2030, which amounts to
9 % of the total global premature deaths due to particulate matter.
Introduction
Black carbon (BC) is emitted into the atmosphere as microscopically small, solid particles formed
as a result of incomplete combustion .
The climate effects of atmospheric BC are complex.
As an efficient light-absorbing compound it is generally thought to warm the climate
.
This effect becomes very important in the Arctic, because atmospheric
light absorption is enhanced above the reflecting snow and ice surfaces and also because the
deposited BC particles darken the snow and ice, which affects the melt rate .
On the other hand, the ageing of BC aerosol particles increases their hygroscopicity and makes
them potential cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) .
While increases in CCN will have a cooling effect, BC in cloud droplets or nearby clouds tends
to warm the cloud, affecting the evaporation of clouds as well as the atmospheric stability,
which leads to changes in cloud dynamics.
This results in a semi-direct cooling effect .
Eventually, as BC is deposited on snow and ice, it increases the melt rate and contributes to the
thinning of glaciers and loss of Arctic sea ice .
In addition, changes in BC emissions usually also affect the emission of other, co-emitted
aerosol compounds, like organic carbon and sulfate .
These species mostly scatter light, thereby reflecting part of the incoming sunlight, which leads to
cooling .
They also, like aged BC, can act as CCN and thus affect cloud properties
.
Altogether this makes it very hard to assess the climatic effects of BC mitigation.
Apart from climate effects, aerosol mitigation is very important for enhancing air quality in many
regions of the world, which affects many aspects of life, the most important of which is health.
As humans (and animals) inhale aerosol (usually the measure is particulate matter with diameters below
2.5 µm or PM2.5) for long periods of time, part of the aerosol mass deposits in the
respiratory tract and may even enter the bloodstream .
This can severely increase the risk of developing many kinds of diseases, including respiratory diseases,
heart diseases, and strokes .
When assessing the importance of BC mitigation, the co-benefits of these aspects should hence be taken
into account .
Emissions from within the Arctic area (which we here define as 60–90∘
north) account for only a small fraction of the global emissions, and most of the impacts are
induced by BC emitted and imported from outside the area .
Recent studies have indeed indicated that an important pathway of BC contributing to Arctic warming
is through the transport of heated air masses from outside the area, especially from mid-latitudes
.
Different emission sectors contribute differently to the total BC emissions in different parts
of the world.
Globally, burning of fossil fuels and biomass in transport, household heating, and cooking as
well as wildfires are important emission sources of BC.
In the Arctic Council member states, on the other hand, the key anthropogenic emission sources
include transport and household heating as well as flaring in the oil and gas industry
.
Arctic shipping is currently a relatively minor source, but its relative importance is projected
to increase with the decrease in the Arctic sea ice extent .
The recent AMAP assessment indicated that with targeted choices of already
existing mitigation measures of BC-rich sources, it could be possible to cut the projected
global and Arctic climate impacts significantly in the coming few decades, provided that
they could be implemented globally on a large scale.
Such reductions can, however, be politically very demanding to achieve, since
currently no mechanisms or policy processes are in place.
At the international level, there are no legally binding mitigation measures applicable to BC,
apart from commitments to reduce BC as part of fine particulate matter (PM2.5)
under the Gothenburg Protocol to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution
.
However, important non-binding processes to accelerate regional action exist under the Arctic Council.
The key examples include the framework document
“Enhanced Black Carbon and Methane Emissions Reductions, An Arctic Council Framework for Action”,
adopted by the Arctic Council in their 2015 meeting .
According to the document, the Arctic Council member states are committed to accelerating
the decline in BC emissions and call upon the Arctic Council observer states to participate
in the efforts.
Currently eight observer states have participated in the process.
Furthermore, the 10th Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting in May 2017 adopted an aspirational
collective goal of limiting BC emissions between 25 % and 33 % below 2013 levels by 2025
.
In addition to these non-binding formal frameworks, voluntary action can also be driven by
co-benefits at the local scale, which include air quality, human health, and crop yields.
In this work we study what could be achieved by accelerated BC actions in the Arctic Council
member states alone and together with the
observer states in terms of reducing atmospheric burden, deposition, and radiative
forcing of BC in the Arctic.
The analysis takes into account the cooling by co-emitted sulfur species and organic carbon.
The results are compared with large-scale global emission reduction scenarios that have been the
foundation of previous studies.
The study brings to light the unique and still relatively unexplored institutional potential of
the Arctic Council to catalyse global regulatory action on the abatement of air pollution by engaging
its observer states in concrete, quantitative, and collective actions on BC reduction.
MethodsEmission scenarios
As anthropogenic emission inputs we used the ECLIPSE version 5a emission scenarios, which
include data for black carbon (BC), organic carbon (OC) or organic matter (OM),
sulfur dioxide (SO2), methane (CH4), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx),
non-methane volatile organic compounds (nmVOCs), and ammonia (NH3) from the IIASA-GAINS model
.
The emissions are available in 5-year intervals, spatially distributed onto a
0.5∘× 0.5∘
latitude grid, and include monthly data for the major sectors.
For the present study, we only used emission data for the major aerosol compounds BC, OC,
and SO2 and re-gridded the data to the T63 model resolution, which roughly corresponds to
2∘× 2∘.
The Arctic Council member and observer states (before 2017).
Arctic Council membersCanada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, USAActive observersFrance, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Poland, South Korea, Spain, United KingdomOther observersChina, the Netherlands, Singapore
We utilized particularly two of the scenarios, namely the Current Legislation (BASELINE) scenario and
the short-lived climate forcer (SLCF) mitigation (MITIGATE) scenario, as starting points to
construct the emission data sets for this study.
The BASELINE scenario assumes that all 2015 agreed legislation and adopted policies affecting
air pollutant emissions (see e.g. , and ) will be implemented.
The SLCF mitigation scenario (MITIGATE) additionally assumes the full global implementation of
SLCF emission reduction technologies phasing in by 2030 and 2050 (see ).
The technologies were selected from existing emission control options for particulate and gaseous
species in the GAINS model by assessing the potential climate impact using a climate metric
and can therefore be viewed as a maximum feasible
SLCF reduction scenario.
For the purposes of this study we constructed combinations of the BASELINE and MITIGATE
scenarios to study the impact of emission reduction measures taken by the member states of the
Arctic Council member and observer states (see Table and Fig. )
on the Arctic climate.
As mentioned above, and
have used similar data sets, but they
introduced the emission reductions globally, whereas in this work we apply the emission
reductions in successively larger regions of the globe.
As a reference scenario we used the ECLIPSE BASELINE scenario (here referred to as CLE).
We further constructed scenarios where the additional MITIGATE SLCF reductions are
implemented:
in the Arctic Council member states (AC),
in the Arctic Council member and active observer states (AC_ACT;
countries that have shown
interest in joining the Framework for Action on Black Carbon and Methane by submitting
a national report to the Arctic Council in 2015),
in the Arctic Council member states and all observer states (AC_ALL), and
globally (GLOB; equal to the ECLIPSE MITIGATION scenario).
The global extents of the implemented SLCF emission reductions for the different scenarios are
outlined in Fig. .
Ship emissions are included in the ECLIPSE scenarios, but it is unclear how individual countries
can affect these emissions, and they are therefore the same in all scenarios.
All emission data sets not covered by the ECLIPSE emissions (i.e. aircraft emissions,
biogenic emissions, and wildfires)
were taken from the ECHAM-HAMMOZ standard emission data sets .
Global extent of SLCF reductions for the different scenarios.
Starting from AC, each scenario includes all countries of the previous scenario
(e.g. AC_ACT = AC plus active observer states).
Aerosol-climate model
For our climate simulations, we used the ECHAM-HAMMOZ aerosol-climate model (ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3-MOZ1.0).
The ECHAM6 host atmospheric model
computes the atmospheric circulation and fluxes using a
semi-Lagrangian transport scheme, HAM
models aerosol processes, and MOZ
(not used in this study) models atmospheric chemistry.
Aerosol emissions, transport, radiation interaction, and water update are modelled with HAM. Within HAM, two different aerosol microphysics models can be used: either the M7 modal aerosol
module
or the Sectional Aerosol module for Large Scale Applications (SALSA) .
Here we use SALSA to solve the aerosol microphysics
(hereafter we refer to this model setup as ECHAM-SALSA);
SALSA represents aerosols by dividing the aerosol size distribution into 10 size sections
(or bins), where
the aerosol population is further divided into a soluble and an insoluble sub-population.
A detailed description of the SALSA size distribution is given in ,
elaborating on the size resolution and which aerosol compounds are treated in which size bin. In the same article, an evaluation of ECHAM-SALSA against satellite and ground-based
remote sensing instruments, in situ observations of aerosol composition and size distribution, as well as aircraft measurements of aerosol composition has been performed. In addition, ECHAM-SALSA has been involved in several model experiments within the
AEROCOM initiative, where models are compared against aerosol observations and
against each other
(e.g. ).
Furthermore, ECHAM-SALSA's capability to simulate aerosol–cloud interactions compared
to satellite observations has been evaluated in a previous study by .
SALSA treats the chemical species sulfate (SU), organic carbon (OC), black carbon (BC), sea
salt (SS), and mineral dust (DU).
Within one size bin of one sub-population, all aerosol particles are assumed to have the same
chemical composition, while the two sub-populations are treated as externally mixed.
SALSA solves the aerosol processes of nucleation, condensation, coagulation, activation into
cloud droplets, and aerosol removal.
HAM includes a simplified sulfate chemistry, which oxidises gaseous sulfur dioxide (SO2)
into sulfuric acid (H2SO4), which can either nucleate to form new particles
or condense onto existing particles;
2.5 % of the total SO2 emissions are converted into SO4 at emission time and
released as primary particles.
In SALSA cloud droplet activation is solved using the parameterisation by
such that both soluble and insoluble particles can form cloud droplets.
In the cloud activation routine, SU and OC are treated as fully dissolved compounds,
with hygroscopicity values (κ) of 0.57 and 0.21, respectively.
BC is assumed to be completely insoluble and contributes to cloud droplet activation
only indirectly, by facilitating condensation of sulfuric acid to the particle
phase.
Climate simulations
The scenarios that were used in this study are outlined in Sect. .
For each scenario, we considered the year 2010 to be the present; thus, emission strengths are
the same for all scenarios for 2010 and diverge after that.
All SLCF emission reductions are assumed to be fully implemented by 2050, and we thus performed
two simulations per scenario, one for the year 2030 and one for the year 2050.
Together with the reference simulation for 2010, this makes a total of 11 simulations.
In order to ensure sufficient statistics, each simulation was run for 30 years plus half a year
of spin-up.
As we here were only interested in assessing the aerosol effect on the Arctic climate,
the atmospheric greenhouse gas mixing ratios were set to the values of the year 2010 for all simulations.
The values used were based on
the Representative Concentration Pathway 4.5 scenario (RCP4.5),
following the fifth assessment report of
the International Panel for Climate Change (IPCC)
(note
that for the year 2010 the greenhouse gas concentrations are almost identical for all four RCPs,
and therefore the choice of any particular RCP has no influence on the findings in this study).
This means that the mixing ratios for CO2, CH4, and N2O were set to
389.1 ppm, 1767 ppb, and 323 ppb, respectively.
Furthermore, the sea surface temperatures (SST), sea ice cover (SIC), and (spatially varying)
ozone concentrations were the same in all simulations.
For SST and SIC we used the monthly varying climatologies from the PCMDI's Atmospheric Model
Intercomparison Project for the year 2010.
For the 3D ozone and OH concentrations we used the reanalysis of the atmospheric
oxidants for the year 2010 as described in
.
It should be mentioned that fixing greenhouse gas concentrations, SST, and SIC in this way prohibits
several feedback mechanisms that may affect the magnitude of the simulated aerosol radiative forcing,
mainly because atmospheric temperatures are not allowed to adjust freely.
These effects include for instance changes in atmospheric water vapour content, which may affect clouds
and thereby the atmospheric aerosol concentrations, and non-anthropogenic (e.g. biogenic)
aerosol emissions, which may also affect the anthropogenic aerosol in several ways.
In all simulations performed in this study, the horizontal model resolution was set to the T63
spectral truncation, which corresponds to a resolution of roughly
2∘× 2∘, and a vertical resolution of 47 hybrid
sigma-pressure levels was used.
The model meteorology was allowed to evolve freely.
This together with the fixed SST and SIC allows for rapid adjustments of the atmosphere
while avoiding climate feedbacks and therefore makes it possible to calculate the effective
radiative forcing (ERF) .
The ERF is calculated as the difference of the average net radiative flux at the top of the
atmosphere between the reference simulation (2010) and any of the simulations using emissions from
a reduction scenario.
The aerosol direct radiative effect (DRE) is calculated online by performing the radiation
calculations twice, once with and once without accounting for aerosol–radiation interaction.
The aerosol direct radiative forcing (DRF) is then again computed as the difference in DRE between
the reference simulation (2010) and any of the simulations using emissions from a reduction scenario.
Human health and mortality evaluation
We utilized the Tracer Model 5 Fast Scenario Screening Tool (TM5-FASST), developed
at JRC Ispra (Italy), to assess the impact of the different mitigation scenarios outlined
in Sect. on human health. TM5-FASST evaluates how air pollutant
emissions affect large-scale pollutant concentrations and their impact on human health
(e.g. mortality and years of life lost) and crop yield. It utilizes source–receptor relationships
to link emissions of pollutants in a given source region to downwind concentrations and related
impacts. The source–receptor relationships have been derived by utilizing a large amount of
simulations with the TM5 chemical transport model , which accounts for the
effects of meteorology and chemical and physical processes on the transport of particulate
matter (PM) .
The source–receptor relationships were derived using present-day meteorological data and were
fixed for all the scenarios investigated here.
Changes in aerosol concentrations can affect meteorology, which can feed back on certain aerosol
processes, most notably wet removal, and thereby transport of aerosol.
By fixing the meteorology, these effects are effectively ignored.
However, as aerosols have comparably short atmospheric lifetimes, aerosol sources affect
PM surface concentrations close-by the most, and the resulting error should therefore be
relatively small.
Health impacts from particulate matter with
diameter smaller than 2.5 µm (PM2.5) are calculated as the number of annual
premature mortalities from five causes of death, following the Global Burden of Diseases
(GBD) methodology : ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary
disease, stroke, lung cancer, and acute lower respiratory airway infections. More details
on the model can be found in .
Uncertainty intervals and statistical significance
Unless stated otherwise, the values provided in the text and figures are arithmetical
average values over all analysed simulation years and uncertainty intervals are presented
as 1 standard deviation.
For some of the results we additionally performed a two-sided Mann–Whitney U test to analyse
statistical significance.
In these cases we assume that a p value of less than 0.05 denotes
a statistically significant difference between the results of two simulations.
ResultsGlobal emissions
Figure shows the change in the global anthropogenic emissions of
black carbon (BC), organic carbon (OC), and sulfate (SU =SO2+SO4), which are the
anthropogenic aerosol species that are modelled by ECHAM-SALSA.
The first thing to note is the way that the different mitigation scenarios affect the aerosol
emissions.
The black line in each plot shows the effect of the current legislation (CLE) from years 2010
to 2050.
Here SU shows the strongest changes in emission strength (about 19 % reduction by 2030), while
OC and BC emissions change less (about 14 % and 13 % reduction by
2030, respectively).
The SLCF mitigation scenarios include additional emission reduction measures to the CLE scenario for
2030 and 2050.
As SU has an overall cooling effect in the atmosphere, it is usually considered unfavourable to reduce
SU emissions when trying to slow global warming.
Therefore, the SLCF mitigation measures have been selected such that they are mainly SU-neutral.
In Fig. this can be seen by comparing the different scenarios for the same
simulation year: while SU emissions show very little further change from the CLE scenario
(less than 0.5 %; note how the lines in Fig. c lie on top of
each other), BC emissions decrease dramatically, with a maximum reduction since 2010 of
81.3 % in 2050 for global implementation of the reductions (scenario GLOB).
This amounts to decreasing the global anthropogenic BC emissions by 78.8 % in 2050 when
comparing scenario GLOB to scenario CLE.
As OC and BC are usually co-emitted species, the OC emissions decrease accordingly
(70.7 % from 2010 to 2050 for scenario GLOB).
Note in Fig. c how the anthropogenic emission strength of SU almost recovers
to the value of 2010 between 2030 and 2050, which can be attributed to economic growth.
Here it should be noted that, while the global total emissions increase, regional trends,
especially in the developed world (e.g. in Europe and North America), may be of opposite sign.
In comparison, the changes in BC and OC emissions between 2030 and 2050 for the different
emission scenarios are much smaller (and not necessarily of the same direction).
This occurs because in the SLCF mitigation scenarios the mitigation measures are assumed to
be fully implemented by 2030 and, furthermore, the largest parts of BC and OC emissions come
from different sectors than SU, which develop differently with time.
Total yearly global anthropogenic emission of BC (a), OC (b), and SU (c) for the different
emission scenarios.
The colouring for the scenarios is the same as in Fig. , with CLE plotted in black.
Arctic aerosol burdens
Depending on the emission site, pollutants can reach the Arctic through different transport pathways.
While pollutants emitted within the Arctic are mostly transported close to the surface,
pollutants from sources further south mostly enter the Arctic at relatively high altitudes
.
Uplifting of these pollutants happens either directly after emission or when the pollutants
reach the polar dome.
Within the polar dome, vertical exchange of air masses is very slow
.
In our simulations, this difference in transport pathways is clearly visible when analysing the
vertical aerosol profiles over the Arctic region
(60–90∘ north).
Figure a–c show the Arctic yearly average vertical aerosol
mass distribution profile for BC, OC, and SU, respectively.
All three profiles show two peaks as a function of altitude – one close to the surface and one at
approximately 200 hPa, which is above the Arctic tropopause.
Each profile also shows a pronounced minimum between 400 and 500 hPa,
depending on the species.
As the vertical location of aerosols within the troposphere is important for many atmospheric
processes (e.g. aerosol–cloud interactions and aerosol deposition), we divided the Arctic
atmosphere into a lower troposphere (LT) and a rest of the atmosphere (RA) part,
using the minimum of the BC profile
(at approximately 450 hPa) as a limit between the two.
In , the BC, OC, and SU vertical profiles modelled by ECHAM-SALSA were compared
to several aircraft campaigns.
There it was found that ECHAM-SALSA tends to overestimate BC concentrations in the source regions
and underestimate BC concentrations at high latitudes.
Furthermore, we compared the modelled BC vertical profiles to measurement data from the ATom and
HIPPO campaigns (not shown), where the model compares quite well with the observations at all latitudes.
The OC and SU modelled concentrations agreed in most cases much better with the observations.
Arctic vertical profiles (a–c) in 2010 and their respective changes in 2030 (d–f)
and 2050 (g–i) of BC (a, d, g), OC (b, e, h), and SU (c, f, i).
The grey shading in (a)–(c) denotes the interval between the 10th and
90th percentiles of the data.
Figure d–f show how the vertical profiles change from 2010 to
2030 for the different scenarios, while Fig. g–i show the
changes from 2010 to 2050.
As explained above, most of the aerosols emitted within the Arctic contribute to the LT concentrations.
Accordingly, when reducing emissions in the Arctic Council member states (scenario AC),
BC and OC concentrations decrease the most close to the surface, while the RA concentration
changes are much smaller in comparison.
When increasing the area of the SLCF mitigation, which mostly means emission reductions further
south, the LT BC and OC concentrations show fairly little further decrease, while the RA
concentrations begin to decrease noticeably.
As sulfate emissions are not very strongly affected by the SLCF mitigation,
there are no big differences in concentration changes between the different scenarios
(Fig. f and i), and most of the visible changes are due
to the CLE emission changes.
It is, however, noteworthy that SU concentrations react differently to the CLE
emission changes than BC and OC do.
While LT SU concentrations decrease, RA concentrations increase.
This happens because in the model SU is mainly emitted as SO2, which then is chemically processed
to form SO4 and finally partitions to the aerosol phase via new particle formation (NPF)
and condensation to pre-existing particles.
Note here that with NPF we denote the formation of new particles through nucleation of
SO4 and their concurrent growth to CCN sizes through further condensation of SO4
onto these particles .
Any shift in aerosol concentrations alters the condensation sink for SU and thus may affect the
horizontal and vertical locations of NPF.
With a cleaner LT, more gaseous SU finds its way to the RA to undergo NPF there.
The RA increase in SU concentrations is larger in 2050 than in 2030, because of increased SU
emissions at lower latitudes.
Arctic aerosol mass burdens for BC (a, d, g), OC (b, e, h), and SU (c, f, i).
Panels (a)–(c) show the rest of the atmosphere (RA) burdens, (d)–(f) show lower troposphere (LT)
burdens, and (g)–(i) show the total column burden.
The error bars show the standard deviation of the data.
Figure shows the yearly average Arctic column burdens of BC, OC, and SU.
Based on the earlier defined boundary between lower troposphere (LT) and rest of the atmosphere (RA)
in the Arctic
(approximately 450 hPa), we computed separate RA (Fig. a–c),
LT (Fig. d–f), and total (Fig. g–i)
column mass burdens for BC, OC, and SU, respectively.
As may be anticipated from the global emissions, the SU mass burdens vary very little between the
different scenarios and mainly follow the changes in time of the CLE scenario.
The BC burdens show the strongest relative changes between the scenarios, while the relative
OC burden changes are much smaller than the BC burden changes, but still larger
than the SU burden changes.
In the following we will analyse the different species separately.
Black carbon
In the CLE scenario, the yearly LT BC burden decreases by
11.7±3.5 % (6.1 µg m-2)
and 9.6±3.9 % (4.9 µg m-2)
for 2030 and 2050, respectively, compared to 2010.
In contrast, the current legislation together with the SLCF reductions in
the Arctic Council member states (AC scenario) reduce the LT BC burden of 2010 by
39.4±3.9 % (20.4 µg m-2) and
43.4±3.6 % (22.5 µg m-2) for 2030 and 2050, respectively.
This means that the influence of BC emissions in the regions close to the Arctic on Arctic LT BC
burdens is substantial.
For instance, in 2030, the difference in global BC emissions between the CLE and AC scenarios is only
-3.7 %, while the difference in yearly average LT BC burden is -31.3 %,
which amounts to 14.3 µg m-2.
Comparing this to a global SLCF reduction, the BC emissions in the same year decrease by
71.4 % between the CLE and GLOB scenarios, while the yearly average LT BC burden decreases
by 57.5 % (26.3 µg m-2).
The AC_ACT and AC_ALL scenarios only induce small reductions in LT BC burdens compared to the
differences between CLE, AC, and GLOB.
Expressing this in terms of a burden reduction efficiency, which one may define as the ratio between
the relative Arctic BC mass burden reduction and the relative global BC emission reduction, this would
result in a LT burden reduction efficiency of 8.4 for the AC scenario and 0.8 for the GLOB scenario.
This is an important result: while the potential in BC emission reductions in the Arctic Council
member states may be small compared to the global total, the potential to decrease Arctic BC
concentrations close to the surface is substantial.
Doing the same analysis for the yearly average Arctic RA BC burdens, the decreases in the
CLE and AC scenarios since 2010 are fairly small (6.1±8.6 % and 7.6±8.9 %, respectively,
for 2030).
In fact, the variability in the change is larger than the actual simulated difference itself.
Compared to the CLE scenario, the 2030 difference in RA BC burden in the AC scenario is
-1.6 % (1.1 µg m-2), and in the GLOB scenario it is
-71.5 % (49.9 µg m-2).
AC_ACT reduces the RA BC burden by
15.2 µg m-2 from AC,
while AC_ALL makes only a small additional contribution.
Using the same definition as above, the RA burden reduction efficiency is
0.3 for the AC scenario and 1.0 for the GLOB scenario.
This means that emissions further south have a higher relative impact on RA BC burdens
than emissions close to the Arctic (note that even though the emission reduction regions in the
different scenarios do not strictly expand north to south, the countries that add most of
the emissions in each scenario are distributed that way).
In summary, Arctic BC burdens follow BC emission reductions very systematically: the lower the BC
emissions, the lower the total Arctic BC burdens.
However, emission sources close to the Arctic affect BC burdens in the lower troposphere much
more strongly than emission sources further south.
The opposite is true for BC burdens in the rest of the atmosphere.
As anthropogenic BC emissions at high latitudes are highest during the winter months and
lowest during the summer, reductions in LT BC burdens are also strongest during the winter.
The total LT BC mass burden, however, is higher during the summer months (but lower in the
surface layer).
The RA BC burdens do not show any seasonal trend.
Organic carbon
The yearly mean trends in Arctic OC burdens due to reductions in anthropogenic emissions largely
follow the BC burden trends.
However, while the absolute values of the changes are of the same order of magnitude for OC and BC,
the relative changes in the OC burden are much smaller.
This is due to the high contribution from natural sources (e.g. biogenic sources and wildfires)
to the total OC emissions, which is most noticeable in the LT during the summer.
For instance, in 2010 the Arctic LT OC burden during the summer months is on average
1341.1 µg m-2, which is about 15 times more than the LT BC burden
during the same period.
In contrast, the LT OC burden in the winter months is only
86.1 µg m-2, which is only about 1.6 times higher than the LT BC burden.
The seasonal variation in the RA OC burden is much less dramatic
(357.6 and
226.8 µg m-2 in the summer and winter, respectively).
Allowing the meteorology to evolve freely introduces considerable year-to-year variability in
all transported species, because the wind and cloud fields have a relatively high natural
variability, which affects both aerosol transport and removal.
The variability in the mass burdens of any species is proportional to the total burden (due to both
anthropogenic and natural emissions).
Because the emission reductions considered here only affect the anthropogenic contribution
to the total burden, which for OC was already quite small to start with, this natural
variability introduces fairly large uncertainties into the changes in atmospheric OC burdens.
For instance, in the CLE scenario, the change in Arctic LT OC burden from 2010 to 2030 during
the summer months is +3.0±8.1 %, which equals +40.3±109.0µg m-2.
In other words, the natural variability is more than twice the actual average change and more
than the total LT BC burden.
Relative to the CLE scenario, the changes in Arctic LT OC summer burden in 2030 due to
BC mitigation amount to +0.7 % (+10.2µg m-2)
and
-1.7 % (-23.1µg m-2) for the AC and GLOB scenarios, respectively.
In the winter the corresponding changes are
-24.2 % (-19.1µg m-2) and
-40.4 % (-31.9µg m-2), respectively.
For the RA the changes show even higher variability, but are probably climatically not as
relevant, as will be discussed below.
Sulfate
The changes in SU burden are qualitatively quite different from the changes in BC and OC burdens.
Like BC and OC, the Arctic LT SU burden decreases in 2030 and 2050 compared to 2010, with the
decrease in 2030 (about 18.4±4.0 % for CLE) being larger than in 2050
(10.9±4.3 % for CLE).
In the RA, on the other hand, the SU burden increases by
5.8±10.9 % and 25.1±12.7 % in 2030 and 2050, respectively, for the CLE scenario.
This stronger increase in RA SU burden in 2050 compared to 2030 aligns well with the strong increases
in SU emissions in India in 2050.
In general, the Arctic SU burden is largely unaffected by the SLCF reduction scenarios and appears
to be dominated by the emission changes in the CLE scenario.
However, there appears to be a slight trend of both the LT and RA SU burdens being lower with globally
increasing coverage of the SLCF emission reductions.
The uncertainties in these values, however, are very big, and especially the differences between
the changes in different scenarios are much smaller than the accompanying uncertainties.
As has been discussed in the OC section above, the larger relative variability in SU burden
changes can be explained by the relatively small change in total emission strength.
While the anthropogenic SU emission reduction is the main driver of the average change in
SU mass burden, the total SU emission strength (anthropogenic and natural) directly
influences the magnitude of the variability of the change.
Furthermore, both SU and OC have a higher water solubility than BC, which makes these substances
more susceptible to aerosol–cloud interactions and wet removal, both processes being highly variable
in ECHAM-SALSA.
Aerosol–cloud interactions
The discussed changes in aerosol concentrations have relatively strong effects on the cloud properties.
Figure a shows the vertical distribution of the average
concentration of aerosol particles with
diameters larger than 100 nm (N100) over the Arctic for the 2010 reference simulation. N100 is a commonly used proxy for the concentration of cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
.
Figure d and g
show the changes in the N100 profiles for 2030 and 2050, respectively.
Here the influence of all aerosol species on N100 can clearly be seen.
In the RA, the N100 trend appears to be dictated mainly by the SU trends.
This indicates that the changes in RA N100 are mainly caused by changes in
new particle formation (NPF).
In the LT, on the other hand, the N100 trends appear to be more dependent on the BC and
OC trends, especially close to the surface.
This indicates that here changes in N100 are mainly governed by primary emissions.
In the CLE scenario, the LT N100 burden decreases by
4.5±5.5 % and 2.9±5.7 % for 2030 and 2050, respectively, compared to 2010.
For the AC scenario, the LT N100 burden decreases by
13.2±5.5 % and 12.6±5.5 % for the same years.
As for the BC and OC mass burden trends, these changes are more pronounced during the winter
months and are least distinguishable during the summer.
Arctic vertical profiles (a–c) in 2010 and their respective changes in 2030 (d–f)
and 2050 (g–i) for N100(a, d, g), CDNC (b, e, h), and cloud cover fraction (c, f, i).
The grey shading in panels (a)–(c) denotes the interval between the 10th and
90th percentiles of the data.
Figure b shows the yearly average vertical distribution of
the Arctic cloud droplet number concentration (CDNC) for the 2010 reference simulation, while
Fig. e and h show the
respective changes for 2030 and 2050.
Since most water clouds occur in the lower part of the atmosphere, we will restrict this
discussion to LT CDNC.
As may be expected, the changes in N100 affect the Arctic CDNC values.
The change in LT CDNC burden since 2010 in the CLE scenario is fairly small:
-3.5±3.6 ‰ in 2030 and -1.2±3.4 % in 2050.
The change in CDNC burden from the CLE to the AC scenario is
-7.9 % and -10.0 %
for 2030 and 2050, respectively, and varies only slightly for the other scenarios.
This is in line with the LT OC and BC mass burdens changing most in the AC scenario,
while the other SLCF scenarios affect the RA mass burdens more.
Similarly to the OC and BC mass burdens and the N100 burdens, CDNC burden changes are
strongest during the winter and weakest during the summer.
A decrease in CDNC means that the cloud droplets are on average larger, which renders the clouds
less reflective, amounting to a net warming effect
.
For the scattering SU aerosols this means that the direct warming effects of SU reductions are amplified
by the decrease in CDNC, while for the absorbing BC the reduction in CDNC counteracts the cooling
effect of BC reductions.
On the other hand, smaller CDNC values may accelerate precipitation formation, which in turn
may shorten the cloud lifetime
, which may reduce the cloud fraction.
A reduced cloud fraction, depending on the conditions, may have either a warming or cooling effect.
On the one hand, if the cloud fraction is smaller, less sunlight is reflected back to space,
which nets to a warming of the atmosphere.
On the other hand, less outgoing longwave radiation
is reflected back to the surface, which nets to a cooling of the surface.
The changes in Arctic cloud fraction will be discussed below in combination with the radiative
forcings.
Figure c, f, and i indicate a small upward shift in the
Arctic cloud cover vertical profile: the cloud cover fraction decreases in the LT and increases
in the RA (this can also be seen in Figs. S5 and S6 in the Supplement).
However, these shifts are statistically not significant, and we therefore do not investigate this
further.
Radiative forcingGlobal values
The global aerosol all-sky short-wave (SW) direct radiative forcing (sRFA) is shown in
Fig. a.
The aerosol long-wave (LW) direct radiative forcing is an order of magnitude smaller than the
SW forcing and will therefore not be discussed here.
Omitting a detailed quantitative analysis, it can be seen that the sRFA values very well
reflect the emission reductions of the different scenarios: the more the BC emissions are
reduced in any particular year, the larger the global cooling effect that can be seen in
the sRFA values.
A notable feature of the BC direct radiative forcing is that the BC all-sky forcing is
typically larger (more negative) than the clear-sky forcing (not shown), which is opposite
to the direct radiative forcings of scattering aerosols.
This occurs because in a cloudy sky more sunlight is reflected back to space and thus the
absolute amount of short-wave radiation leaving the planet is larger, which amplifies the
light absorption effect of BC .
Global (a) direct short-wave aerosol radiative forcing, (b) total short-wave radiative forcing,
(c) CDNC burden, and (d) effective radiative forcing.
The error bars show the standard deviation of the data.
Compared to the sRFA values of the
SLCF scenarios,
the sRFA that is caused by the
reductions in SU emissions in the CLE scenario is much smaller in magnitude.
This can be seen by following the black line for the CLE scenario in Fig. a:
between 2010 and 2030, where global SU emissions decrease, the global sRFA is slightly
positive (0.03±0.07 W m-2),
while between 2030 and 2050, where global SU emissions recover,
the sRFA is slightly negative (-0.05±0.08 W m-2).
Altogether, a global implementation of the maximum feasible BC emission reductions
(scenario GLOB) produces sRFA values of -0.45±0.08
and -0.57±0.07 W m-2 for 2030 and 2050,
respectively, relative to the 2010 reference scenario.
The sRFA values for the other scenarios follow the BC emission amounts
fairly well.
However, when also taking the indirect effects into account, the picture changes quite dramatically.
Figure b shows the total global short-wave radiative forcing
(sRFTOT; this quantity also includes rapid adjustments of the atmosphere to the
changing aerosol emissions) at the top of the atmosphere.
First off, the reduction in SU emissions in the CLE scenario
between 2010 and 2030 produces a noticeable, statistically significant warming signal
of 0.37±0.31 W m-2, which decreases to 0.16±0.28 W m-2
in 2050, where the SU emissions almost recover to the value of 2010.
On the other hand, the reductions in BC and OC in the SLCP scenarios compared to CLE
indicate, depending on the scenario, either cooling or warming,
with no visible systematic response to the amount of BC and OC reduction.
However, the variability in sRFTOT is considerable, and the differences between different scenarios
are statistically not significant.
As the sRFA values clearly are negative, this change in sign of the radiative
forcing must be due to changes in planetary albedo, which may be attributed to
either surface changes or changes in clouds.
On the global average, the surface albedo (not shown) varies only slightly and may contribute
to the variability in the radiative forcings, but cannot explain the difference between
aerosol and total short-wave RF.
We find, however, a strong effect in global average CDNC burdens
(Fig. c).
The amount of global average CDNC decreases very systematically with the amount of
reduction in aerosol emissions.
Here the effects of both SU reduction in the CLE scenario and BC and OC reduction in the
SLCF scenarios are clearly visible.
Between 2010 and 2030, the global average CDNC burden decreases by
4.0±1.2 % from 4.1×1010 to
3.9×1010 m-2 in the CLE scenario, and the maximum reduction in
CDNC due to SLCF reductions is 5.8±1.2 % in 2030 between the CLE and GLOB scenarios.
The relation between CDNC and cloud radiative forcing has been studied in
.
They list the radiative forcings due to increases in CDNC at 950 hPa for
different models.
Interestingly, even though the CDNC base values and the CDNC increases vary a lot between
models, the resulting radiative forcings are within
0.62 and 1.94 W m-2.
Using the values provided in Table 1 in
,
one can calculate a linear
relation between percental CDNC change and cloud radiative forcing.
The values range from -0.14 cm3 W m-2 for very low
CDNC base values (41.9 cm-3)
to -0.01 cm3 W m-2 for very high CDNC base values
(158.7 cm-3).
In the simulations performed here, we find an average cloud-weighted CDNC at
940 hPa of 59.3 cm-3 with percental changes of up to
11.5 % in the SLCF mitigation scenarios.
For these values, the difference between sRFA and sRFTOT that we observe
can be explained with a factor between
-0.05 and -0.06 cm3 W m-2,
which lies well in the range derived from
.
In addition to their ability to act as CCN, BC particles can also affect clouds through several
semi-direct effects.
As BC inside or close to clouds absorbs radiation, it can affect cloud droplet evaporation and
atmospheric stability, which can also affect cloud properties and lead to cooling
.
These effects, however, are very difficult to distinguish from each other in ECHAM-HAMMOZ and are therefore
not further diagnosed here.
There is also a decrease in cloud time
fraction (fraction of the total simulated time that a grid box is in cloud)
with decreasing aerosol emissions (not shown).
The effect is fairly small, but the cloud time fraction does decrease systematically with
the decreasing strength in aerosol emissions.
In our simulations the decrease in cloud time fraction is most noticeable between the CLE and
AC scenarios and between the AC_ALL and GLOB scenarios (the differences between AC,
AC_act, and AC_all are very small).
This implies that decreasing aerosol emissions close to very pristine environments have the
biggest effect on cloud time fraction.
Generally a reduced cloud time fraction is attributed a warming effect, because the amount
of reflected sunlight back to space is reduced
.
However, at the same time the clouds also reflect less long-wave radiation back to the
surface , which makes the effect on radiative forcings of this phenomenon
less predictable.
However, as the maximum change in cloud time fraction is only of the order of about
1 %, we reason that most of the effect of aerosol–cloud interactions on the
radiative forcings is through the aerosol effect on CDNC.
Figure d shows the global effective radiative forcing (ERF),
which is calculated as the difference in net radiation budget (SW and LW)
at the top of the atmosphere (TOA)
between the simulation scenarios and the 2010 reference scenario.
For the CLE scenario the ERF is positive, amounting to 0.41
and 0.17 W m-2 for 2030 and 2050, respectively, which is in line
with the sRFTOT values.
This reflects quite well the global SU emission reductions, allowing for shifts in the location
of the emissions.
The differences between the different SLCF scenarios are very small and accompanied by very
large uncertainties.
This means that globally the direct radiative effects due to the BC emission reductions are
counteracted by cloud effects.
This has also been reported in previous studies .
Arctic values
Figure a, d, and g show the total Arctic aerosol direct radiative forcing
(RFA, which includes both SW and LW radiation;
note the difference to sRFA discussed for the global forcings, which considers only
SW radiation) for winter, summer, and all year, respectively.
Like for the global values, the Arctic RFA follows the BC burden reduction amounts
very systematically, with maximum RFA values of -0.39
and -0.44 W m-2 for 2030 and 2050, respectively, for the GLOB scenario.
In a cloudy sky the RA BC concentrations contribute much more strongly to the direct radiative forcing
than the LT values (all BC mass below cloud is screened)
.
This is why the BC emission reductions
of the Arctic Council member states have a relatively small effect on the RFA,
which mostly cause lower-level changes in BC concentrations.
Because of the strong seasonal cycle of solar insolation, the Arctic RFA is much stronger
during the summer than during the winter.
Arctic total aerosol all-sky direct radiative forcing (a, d, g), effective radiative forcing (b, e, h),
and cloud cover (c, f, i) for winter (a–c), summer (d–f), and yearly (g–i) averages.
The error bars show the standard deviation of the data.
The Arctic ERF values (Fig. b, e, and h) principally follow the results
obtained for the global ERF.
However, here the relative uncertainty is even larger, taking values of the order of
±2 W m-2.
The ERF differences between the different scenarios are as high as 0.5 W m-2,
with no systematic ordering concerning the BC emission reduction strengths of the SLCF mitigation
scenarios.
Furthermore, the Arctic ERF values appear to be dictated quite strongly by the Arctic cloud
cover (Fig. c, f, and i).
In particular, the winter ERF and cloud cover have a strong positive correlation (0.80),
while the summer ERF and cloud cover have a strong negative correlation (-0.97).
This occurs because during the winter, the long-wave warming of clouds dominates, while during
the summer it is the short-wave cooling effect.
In the yearly average, the correlation between ERF and cloud cover is much weaker
(-0.64), because both short- and long-wave effects are important.
This is also visible when comparing Fig. h and i.
The reason why RFA and ERF are so different in the Arctic can be explained
by cloud changes.
During the winter, when BC and OC emission reductions in the AC scenario are largest,
there is also a very strong decrease in LT CDNC burden (not shown) between the CLE and AC
scenarios (21.4 %), while the differences between AC and the other SLCF mitigation
scenarios are small, but systematic.
During the summer the CDNC trends for the different scenarios are similar, but much less pronounced.
Like for the global radiative forcings, we interpret the changes in Arctic CDNC as the main driver
of the differences between RFA and ERF.
As already mentioned, the Arctic ERF values show large uncertainties.
The main contributions to these uncertainties are the strong natural variability in Arctic cloud
cover and yearly average surface albedo, the latter of which is due to the year-to-year variability
in snow cover.
Other possible contributors are the variability in aerosol burdens, CDNC, and heat transport into
the Arctic.
Equally strong uncertainties in ERF have also been observed elsewhere
(e.g. ).
Surface
Deposition of BC on ice and snow is widely reported to strongly affect the surface albedo and
accelerate snowmelt and ice melt .
In ECHAM-HAMMOZ the deposition of BC is separated into wet deposition, dry deposition,
and sedimentation, with wet deposition making the largest contribution to the total.
As dry deposition is a function of the BC concentrations close to the ground and wet deposition
only depends on in- and below-cloud BC concentrations, it is the LT BC concentrations that
dictate the BC deposition rates in the Arctic.
This can clearly be seen in Fig. : the LT BC burden reductions of the SLCF
scenarios are directly reflected in the BC deposition rates.
Even though the SLCF emission reductions in the Arctic Council member states, compared to the CLE
scenario, only comprise 5.2 % and 5.3 % of the globally feasible
total reductions,
these reductions can reduce the Arctic BC deposition by 29.3 % and 33.8 %
in 2030 and 2050, respectively.
This comprises 57.8 % and 59.7 %
of the achievable decrease in Arctic BC deposition for global implementation
of the SLCF emission reductions.
Arctic BC deposition fluxes: (a) wet deposition, (b) dry deposition, and (c) sedimentation.
The error bars show the standard deviation of the data.
(a) Yearly average Arctic surface albedo, (b) linear regression to data from
,
and (c) Arctic surface radiative forcing due to changes in BC
deposition using results from (b).
The error bars show the standard deviation of the data.
The Arctic surface albedo varies strongly during one year due to the big changes in snow
and ice cover extent.
Because the time that an area is covered by snow during one winter can change considerably from
one year to another, the variations in yearly Arctic surface albedo are big as well
(Fig. a).
Surface albedo can take values between 0 and 1, and a change of 0.001 in surface
albedo amounts to a change of 0.1 W m-2 of sunlight absorption per
100 W m-2 of solar insolation.
As can be seen in Fig. a, the differences in average Arctic surface
albedo between the scenarios can be up to 0.0012, with standard deviations of the order of
0.003.
Note that in the simulations performed here the monthly varying sea ice extent was the same in
each simulation and in each simulation year, which means that the variation in surface albedo
is caused only by the varying snow cover.
Like many other climate models, ECHAM-HAMMOZ does not account for changes in snow albedo due to the
deposition of absorbing aerosols.
The effect of the modelled BC deposition flux on the Arctic snow albedo has been approximated for a
wide selection of AeroCom (Aerosol Comparisons between Observations and Models) models in
,
which also included a previous version of the model used here, ECHAM5-HAMMOZ.
There the modelled Arctic BC deposition fluxes were used as input to an independent surface model,
which then computed the radiative effect due to the computed changes in surface albedo.
In order to approximate the radiative forcings due to the changes in the Arctic BC deposition
flux in this study, we used the data provided in
of all modelled Arctic BC
deposition fluxes and the resulting radiative effects to derive a linear relationship between
the two quantities.
To this end, we performed an orthogonal distance regression (ODR) using the relationship
RE=a×FBC+b, where RE is the Arctic radiative effect in
W m-2, FBC is the yearly average Arctic BC deposition
flux in kg yr-1, and the coefficients a and b have the values
9.76±1.05×10-10 W m-2 (kg yr-1)-1 and
3.69±2.21×10-2 W m-2, respectively.
The regression is visualised in Fig. b.
The fit shows that the
relation between BC deposition rate and RE is remarkably linear,
with relatively small standard deviations, even though we
here used only yearly average fluxes, while
used monthly two-dimensionally
resolved deposition fluxes as model input.
This may, however, mainly be due to the fact that
used the same nudged
meteorology for all simulations and only changed the prescribed BC deposition fluxes according
to the models tested.
The yearly Arctic BC deposition rates simulated here are well within the data range of
the models used in
.
Using the linear relation derived here, we computed the Arctic radiative forcings due to
BC deposition (RFsnow) on snow and ice that may be expected for the simulations
performed here (Fig. c).
As may have been expected, the RFsnow values follow the BC wet deposition values
(FBC,wet) (Fig. a) very well, because of the linear relationship
between FBC and RFsnow and because wet deposition is the dominant
BC deposition process.
As emissions close to the Arctic contribute most to the LT BC burdens and thus have the
biggest impact on Arctic BC deposition fluxes, these emissions also have a big influence
on the RFsnow values.
For instance, in 2030 RFsnow between CLE and AC is
0.07±0.04 W m-2, more than half of the value obtained between CLE and GLOB,
0.13±0.05 W m-2.
For any given year, the absolute value of RFsnow increases with the amount of BC
emission reduction, but the differences between AC, AC_ACT, and AC_ALL are fairly small.
Considering the relatively small amount in BC emission reduction in AC compared to the other
scenarios, the contribution of the BC mitigation of the Arctic Council member states
to the Arctic RFsnow is quite substantial.
remark that in the AeroCom models investigated there, the BC emission fluxes
were constant in time, which is unrealistic, because BC emissions in some sectors
(e.g. residential combustion and energy production) are higher
during the winter and lower during the summer, especially at higher latitudes.
According to them, this most likely leads to an underestimation of RFsnow, because
less BC is deposited during the winter.
As the albedo changes affect RFsnow most during the spring time, the winter is the
most important period with respect to deposited BC affecting snow albedo.
In the simulations performed in this study, we used the ECLIPSE emission scenarios, which
provide a more realistic annual distribution of the emissions.
Therefore the values for RFsnow would most likely be larger (in magnitude) if
similar simulations had been performed using the BC deposition fluxes modelled here.
On the other hand, using monthly average BC deposition fluxes instead of deposition that is
simultaneous with precipitation may overestimate RFsnow.
Altogether, to produce better estimates of RFsnow, an online snow and ice albedo
model that accounts for BC deposition should be included.
However, considering the large natural variability in snow cover (and thereby in surface albedo)
in simulations with freely evolving meteorology, it may be equally challenging to extract
Arctic RF values of that magnitude from such simulations as it is for RF due to atmospheric
aerosol changes.
Comparing the Arctic RFsnow values to the Arctic ERF values, the latter of
which differ at
maximum by 0.5 W m-2 and have standard deviations of the order of
1.0 W m-2, the RFsnow values are relatively small.
In fact, adding the surface snow albedo effect to the atmospheric ERF does not help to separate
the total forcings into a meaningful or systematic order (not shown).
Human health
We used the number of premature deaths due to elevated concentrations of particulate matter as an
indicator of the health benefits that can be achieved due to the emission reductions in the
different scenarios.
The health benefits of the emission reduction of each scenario have been computed for
each of the four regions defined in Fig. .
Thereby we found that, compared to the current
legislation (scenario CLE), emission reductions in the Arctic
Council member states alone (scenario AC) reduce the number of premature deaths by
30 000
(19 %)
and 41 055 (23 %) in the Arctic Council member states in 2030 and 2050,
respectively (Fig. S1).
The additional health benefits outside the Arctic Council member states are relatively small.
Globally the emission reductions in the Arctic Council member states prevent
33 000 and 47 000
premature deaths in 2030 and 2050, respectively (Fig. S4).
In general, it can be said that the
health benefits of the emission reductions are always largest in the region where the emissions
are actually reduced (Figs. S1–S4).
For instance, reducing emissions in the active observer states
in addition to the Arctic Council member states increases the number of prevented deaths
within the active observer states from
43 000 to 206 000
in 2050.
This means that even regions that do not directly
benefit from the impact on Arctic climate still have a strong motivation to reduce their SLCF
emissions.
Globally,
329 000
(9 %) premature deaths could be avoided in 2030 if the Arctic Council
member states and all observer states implement all SLCF mitigation options, which is
18 %
less (403 000
(11 %) avoided deaths) than for a full global implementation.
These estimates are smaller than, for example, in , who estimated, for a similar
global mitigation scenario to the GLOB scenario used here, that full implementation could annually
avoid 0.6–4.4 million premature deaths globally in 2030.
We acknowledge that the overall particulate
matter (PM) concentrations also contain other species, e.g. ash and secondary material from
atmospheric transport, which is why this estimate is a conservative one and should be seen as
a demonstration of the magnitude of the effects rather than a full analysis of PM-related
health effects.
Furthermore, due to
the coarseness of the models used here (and global models in general), concentration spikes (both
spatial and temporal) cannot be simulated to their full extent, which lessens the overall impact
of PM concentrations on human health.
Another reason for the discrepancy is probably the different exposure–response function used,
which in TM5-FASST flattens off at higher PM2.5 concentrations.
However, as all these shortcomings are true for both the
reference scenario (CLE) and the mitigation scenarios, the relative changes in premature deaths
contain valuable information nonetheless.
Conclusions
In order to assess the impacts of black carbon (BC) mitigation policies on Arctic climate,
we studied the radiative forcings that occur when such policies are applied.
To this end, we constructed emission scenarios using the fairly recently published
ECLIPSE v5a emission scenarios
.
The scenarios were constructed such that they reflected the full implementation of all
currently agreed policies and furthermore implemented the maximum feasible BC mitigation
in a successively increasing area of the globe, including the Arctic Council member states,
active observer states, all observer states, and finally the entire globe.
The different geographical extents for mitigation were studied because of the extensive work that
has already been done by the Arctic Council regarding BC mitigation measures and the large
interest in its member states to actually reduce BC emissions.
The probability that the emission reductions will be implemented in part or all of the areas
defined in Fig. is therefore relatively high.
Thus studying these scenarios is very timely and important.
The scenarios account for the simultaneous decrease in co-emitted species.
We restricted
this study to the radiative forcings due to changes in aerosol emissions.
In particular, greenhouse gas concentrations were the same in all simulations.
We found a very strong relation between total global reduction in anthropogenic BC emissions
and Arctic BC mass burdens.
Similar relations were also found for organic carbon (OC) and sulfate (SU), but for these
species the natural background is much larger and thus the changes in Arctic burden are of
less relative importance.
As reported elsewhere
,
we find that emissions close to the
Arctic influence more the BC concentration near the surface, while emissions further south mainly
control the BC concentrations at higher altitudes.
We here divided the Arctic BC mass burdens into a lower troposphere (LT) and a rest of the atmosphere
(RA) contribution and found that, even though the maximum feasible reductions in BC emissions
in the Arctic Council member states are small compared to the global potential, the effects that
these reductions have on the LT BC burdens are considerable.
This is very important, because the LT BC burden has a very strong influence on Arctic BC
deposition to the surface, while the RA BC burden affects BC deposition only slightly.
We find a fairly linear relationship between Arctic BC and OC burden and Arctic direct aerosol
radiative forcing (RFA), independent of the altitude at which the BC concentration changes.
BC and OC are usually attributed opposite effects on direct radiative forcing and cannot really
be separated here, because the changes in BC and OC burdens are so similar in the different scenarios.
However, due to the extensive masking by clouds in the Arctic, the OC effect is expected
to be much smaller than the BC effect.
There is no discernible effect of SU on Arctic RFA.
In contrast to the RFA, the Arctic effective radiative forcing (ERF)
shows no noticeable trend as a function of BC or OC burden,
and the ERF values are accompanied by very large uncertainties.
We argue that the RFA contribution to the ERF is cancelled by changes in cloud
droplet number concentrations (CDNC) and cloud cover
.
The uncertainties in the ERF are due to the strong natural variations in the model meteorology,
which ultimately causes variations in CDNC, cloud cover, surface albedo, and, possibly,
energy transport into the Arctic.
Similar uncertainties in Arctic ERF have also been reported in other studies
.
Our model does not account for snow albedo changes due to BC deposition.
We therefore tried to estimate the resulting radiative forcing (RFsnow) in our
simulations with the help of results from another study .
We found that the RFsnow due to the simulated BC emission reductions may be relevant,
but would still be small compared to the uncertainties in snow cover fraction and ERF that
we encountered.
The potential of BC mitigation to achieve a slowing of Arctic warming on a relatively short timescale has been discussed widely in the literature
.
BC is a good candidate for this very important goal because of its strong interaction with solar
radiation.
However, as was shown in this study, conclusions about the efficacy of BC mitigation measures cannot
be based on the direct effects of BC–radiation interactions alone.
Instead, co-emitted species and aerosol–cloud interactions also have to be taken into account.
According to the fifth assessment report of the IPCC
,
aerosol–cloud interactions
contribute the largest amount of uncertainty to radiative forcing estimates and climate
projections in climate models.
These uncertainties arise due to differences in different climate models, with ECHAM-HAMMOZ and
especially ECHAM-SALSA having a stronger-than-average aerosol–cloud coupling
.
It may therefore well be that, using the same scenarios used in this study, another model
would predict more cooling.
The uncertainties in ERF reported here are due to model-internal variability.
Here we used 30 integration years for our simulations, which is recommended for ERF values of
at least 0.1 W m-2.
As the area studied here is relatively small and the Arctic surface albedo and cloud cover
are highly variable already, it may be possible that much longer integration times are needed
in order to obtain conclusive results, if the Arctic ERF is small.
This may, however, be computationally too costly.
Other methods to estimate the ERF have been suggested
,
which may reduce
variability but often suppress important climate-relevant processes, like, for instance,
the effects of changes in meteorological conditions on cloud dynamics
.
It may therefore be necessary to develop alternative methods to quantify climate effects in
the Arctic.
Finally, estimating climate impacts by computing the ERF due to a given change in emissions
will never draw the entire picture, because fixing the sea surface temperature (SST) and sea
ice cover (SIC) prohibits important climate feedbacks, like e.g. changes in the oceanic heat
transport into the Arctic and the resulting changes in SST and SIC, changes in precipitation,
and accelerated snowmelt.
All these feedbacks affect Arctic surface temperatures in addition to the ERF, and it may therefore be
better to use a fully coupled ocean–aerosol–climate model to estimate Arctic temperature
responses to changing aerosol emissions.
In addition to the climate impacts, reducing BC emissions also has positive effects on human health.
Using the TM5-FASST model , we found that globally
329 000 and 402 000
premature deaths could be prevented by 2030 and 2050, respectively, if the
proposed emission reductions are fully implemented
in all Arctic Council member and observer states.
Compared to other studies , this is a conservative estimate, because
we only considered part of all fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in this study.
To conclude, even though the direct radiative effect of BC mitigation is easily quantifiable,
the accompanying aerosol–cloud interactions of BC and its co-emitted species are still highly
uncertain.
Together with the natural variability of surface albedo and meteorology, this makes the
overall effect on Arctic climate hard to assess.
This does, however, not mean that BC mitigation is not useful in slowing Arctic warming,
especially considering that several climate feedbacks that are not considered here
(e.g. snow albedo feedback and BC effects on cloud dynamics) may further
increase the BC warming potential.
Further studies, including more models, will be needed in order to obtain higher-confidence
estimates of the efficacy of BC mitigation strategies.
Code availability
The ECHAM6-HAMMOZ model is made available to the scientific community under the HAMMOZ
Software Licence Agreement, which defines the conditions under which the model can be used.
The licence can be downloaded from
https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/attachments/download/291/License_ECHAM-HAMMOZ_June2012.pdf ().
Data availability
The model data can be reproduced
using model revision r5888 from the repository
https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/projects/hammoz/repository/show/echam6-hammoz/branches/fmi/white ().
Alternatively, the data can be obtained directly from the authors.
The settings for the simulation are given in the same repository, in folder
https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/projects/hammoz/repository/show/echam6-hammoz/branches/fmi/acp_2019_09_24_settings ().
The ECLIPSE emission input files are available from
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/air/ECLIPSEv5a.html ().
All other emission input files are ECHAM-HAMMOZ standard and are available from the HAMMOZ
repository (see https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/projects/hammoz, ).
The supplement related to this article is available online at: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-5527-2020-supplement.
Author contributions
TK and KKup designed the outline of the paper. TK wrote the majority of the paper. TK
performed all the climate simulations. VVP and KKup generated the emission scenarios for
the climate simulations. TK, TM, HK, AL, JT, and KEJL performed the data analysis for the
climate simulations and produced the figures. RVD performed the FASST simulations. VVP,
KKup, RVD, and TK performed the TM5-FASST data analysis. All the authors contributed to
the writing of the paper.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the CSC-IT Center for Science, Finland,
for computational resources.
The ECHAM-HAMMOZ model is developed by a consortium composed of the ETH Zürich, Max Planck Institut
für Meteorologie, Forschungszentrum Jülich, University of Oxford, Finnish
Meteorological Institute, and Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research, and is managed
by the Center for Climate Systems Modeling (C2SM) at ETH Zürich.
Financial support
This research has been supported by the Academy of Finland, Luonnontieteiden ja Tekniikan Tutkimuksen Toimikunta (grant nos. 286613, 308292, 296644, 272041, and 317373). This article has also received funding from ClimaSlow project “Slowing Down Climate
Change: Combining Climate Law and Climate Science to Identify the Best Options to
Reduce Emissions of Short-Lived Climate Forcers in Developing Countries” (ERC grant
agreement no. 678889) under the EU Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme.
Review statement
This paper was edited by Toshihiko Takemura and reviewed by three anonymous referees.
ReferencesAbdul-Razzak, H. and Ghan, S. J.: A parameterization of aerosol activation 3.
Sectional representation, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 107,
AAC 1-1–AAC 1-6, 10.1029/2001JD000483,
2002.Albrecht, B. A.: Aerosols, Cloud Microphysics, and Fractional Cloudiness,
Science, 245, 1227–1230, 10.1126/science.245.4923.1227, 1989.
AMAP: AMAP assessment 2015: Black carbon and ozone as Arctic climate forcers, AMAP,
Oslo, Norway, 2015.
AMAP: EU-funded Action on Black Carbon in the Arctic, 2019. Review of Reporting
Systems for National Black Carbon Emissions Inventories: EU Action on Black Carbon in the
Arctic – Technical Report, AMAP, Oslo, Norway, 2019.Anenberg, S. C., Schwartz, J., Shindell, D., Amann, M., Faluvegi, G., Klimont,
Z., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Pozzoli, L., Dingenen, R. V., Vignati, E.,
Emberson, L., Muller, N. Z., West, J. J., Williams, M., Demkine, V., Hicks,
W. K., Kuylenstierna, J., Raes, F., and Ramanathan, V.: Global Air Quality
and Health Co-benefits of Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change through Methane
and Black Carbon Emission Controls, Environ. Health Persp., 120,
831–839, 10.1289/ehp.1104301, 2012.Arctic Council: Annex 4. Iqaluit 2015 Sao Report To Ministers. Enhanced
Black Carbon And Methane Emissions Reductions An Arctic Council Framework For
Action, available at:
https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/610, last access: 2015.Arctic Council: Expert Group on Black Carbon and Methane; Summary of
Progress and Recommendations,
available at: https://oaarchive.arctic-council.org/handle/11374/1936, last access: 11 May 2017.Bond, T. C., Doherty, S. J., Fahey, D. W., Forster, P. M., Berntsen, T.,
DeAngelo, B. J., Flanner, M. G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne,
S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P. K., Sarofim, M. C., Schultz, M. G., Schulz, M.,
Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Bellouin, N., Guttikunda, S. K.,
Hopke, P. K., Jacobson, M. Z., Kaiser, J. W., Klimont, Z., Lohmann, U.,
Schwarz, J. P., Shindell, D., Storelvmo, T., Warren, S. G., and Zender,
C. S.: Bounding the role of black carbon in the climate system: A scientific
assessment, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 118, 5380–5552,
10.1002/jgrd.50171,
2013.Burgos, M. A., Andrews, E. J., Titos, G., Benedetti, A., Bian, H., Buchard, V., Curci, G., Kirkevåg, A., Kokkola, H., Laakso, A., Lund, M. T., Matsui, H., Myhre, G., Randles, C., Schulz, M., van Noije, T., Zhang, K., Alados-Arboledas, L., Baltensperger, U., Jefferson, A., Sherman, J., Sun, J., Weingartner, E., and Zieger, P.: A global model-measurement evaluation of particle light scattering coefficients at elevated relative humidity, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 10.5194/acp-2019-1190, in review, 2020.Cherian, R., Quaas, J., Salzmann, M., and Tomassini, L.: Black carbon indirect
radiative effects in a climate model, Tellus B, 69, 1369342, 10.1080/16000889.2017.1369342, 2017.Cofala, J., Amann, M., Klimont, Z., Kupiainen, K., and HöglundIsaksson, L.:
Scenarios of global anthropogenic emissions of air pollutants and methane
until 2030, Atmos.
Environ., 41, 8486–8499, 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2007.07.010, 2007.Diehl, T., Heil, A., Chin, M., Pan, X., Streets, D., Schultz, M., and Kinne, S.: Anthropogenic, biomass burning, and volcanic emissions of black carbon, organic carbon, and SO2 from 1980 to 2010 for hindcast model experiments, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., 12, 24895–24954, 10.5194/acpd-12-24895-2012, 2012.Doherty, S. J., Bitz, C. M., and Flanner, M. G.: Biases in modeled surface snow BC mixing ratios in prescribed-aerosol climate model runs, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 11697–11709, 10.5194/acp-14-11697-2014, 2014.Dusek, U., Frank, G. P., Hildebrandt, L., Curtius, J., Schneider, J., Walter,
S., Chand, D., Drewnick, F., Hings, S., Jung, D., Borrmann, S., and Andreae,
M. O.: Size Matters More Than Chemistry for Cloud-Nucleating Ability of
Aerosol Particles, Science, 312, 1375–1378, 10.1126/science.1125261, 2006.Forster, P. M., Richardson, T., Maycock, A. C., Smith, C. J., Samset, B. H.,
Myhre, G., Andrews, T., Pincus, R., and Schulz, M.: Recommendations for
diagnosing effective radiative forcing from climate models for CMIP6, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 121, 12460–12475,
10.1002/2016JD025320,
2016.
Goldberg, E. D.: Black carbon in the environment: properties and distribution,
J. Wiley, New York, 1985.Gothenburg Protocol: The 1999 Gothenburg Protocol to Abate Acidification, Eutrophication and Ground-Level
Ozone to the Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, available at:
http://www.unece.org/env/lrtap/multi_h1.html (last access: 17 May 2005), 1999.Granier, C., Bessagnet, B., Bond, T., D'Angiola, A., Denier van der Gon, H.,
Frost, G. J., Heil, A., Kaiser, J. W., Kinne, S., Klimont, Z., Kloster, S.,
Lamarque, J.-F., Liousse, C., Masui, T., Meleux, F., Mieville, A., Ohara, T.,
Raut, J.-C., Riahi, K., Schultz, M. G., Smith, S. J., Thompson, A., van
Aardenne, J., van der Werf, G. R., and van Vuuren, D. P.: Evolution of
anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of air pollutants at global and
regional scales during the 1980–2010 period, Climatic Change, 109, 163,
10.1007/s10584-011-0154-1, 2011.HAMMOZ consortium: HAMMOZ Software Licence Agreement, available at:
https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/attachments/download/291/License_ECHAM-HAMMOZ_June2012.pdf,
last access: 29 June 2012.HAMMOZ consortium: ECHAM-HAMMOZ model data, available at (login required):
https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/projects/hammoz/repository/show/echam6-hammoz/branches/fmi/white, simulation settings, available at:
https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/projects/hammoz/repository/show/echam6hammoz/branches/fmi/acp_2019_09_24_settings,
and input data, available at: https://redmine.hammoz.ethz.ch/projects/hammoz,
last access: 24 September 2019.Huijnen, V., Williams, J., van Weele, M., van Noije, T., Krol, M., Dentener, F., Segers, A., Houweling, S., Peters, W., de Laat, J., Boersma, F., Bergamaschi, P., van Velthoven, P., Le Sager, P., Eskes, H., Alkemade, F., Scheele, R., Nédélec, P., and Pätz, H.-W.: The global chemistry transport model TM5: description and evaluation of the tropospheric chemistry version 3.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 3, 445–473, 10.5194/gmd-3-445-2010, 2010.IIASA: ECLIPSE version 5a global emission fields, available at:
https://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/air/ECLIPSEv5a.html, last access: July 2015.Inness, A., Baier, F., Benedetti, A., Bouarar, I., Chabrillat, S., Clark, H., Clerbaux, C., Coheur, P., Engelen, R. J., Errera, Q., Flemming, J., George, M., Granier, C., Hadji-Lazaro, J., Huijnen, V., Hurtmans, D., Jones, L., Kaiser, J. W., Kapsomenakis, J., Lefever, K., Leitão, J., Razinger, M., Richter, A., Schultz, M. G., Simmons, A. J., Suttie, M., Stein, O., Thépaut, J.-N., Thouret, V., Vrekoussis, M., Zerefos, C., and the MACC team: The MACC reanalysis: an 8 yr data set of atmospheric composition, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 4073–4109, 10.5194/acp-13-4073-2013, 2013.IPCC: Annex II: Climate System Scenario Tables, book section AII,
1395–1446, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New
York, NY, USA, 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.030, 2013.Janssen, R. H. H., Ganzeveld, L. N., Kabat, P., Kulmala, M., Nieminen, T., and Roebeling, R. A.: Estimating seasonal variations in cloud droplet number concentration over the boreal forest from satellite observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 11, 7701–7713, 10.5194/acp-11-7701-2011, 2011.Jiao, C., Flanner, M. G., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Bellouin, N., Berntsen, T. K., Bian, H., Carslaw, K. S., Chin, M., De Luca, N., Diehl, T., Ghan, S. J., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Koch, D., Liu, X., Mann, G. W., Penner, J. E., Pitari, G., Schulz, M., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B., Steenrod, S. D., Stier, P., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., van Noije, T., Yun, Y., and Zhang, K.: An AeroCom assessment of black carbon in Arctic snow and sea ice, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 2399–2417, 10.5194/acp-14-2399-2014, 2014.Kerminen, V.-M., Chen, X., Vakkari, V., Petäjä, T., Kulmala, M., and Bianchi,
F.: Atmospheric new particle formation and growth: review of field
observations, Environ. Res. Lett., 13, 103003,
10.1088/1748-9326/aadf3c, 2018.Kiehl, J. T. and Briegleb, B. P.: The Relative Roles of Sulfate Aerosols and
Greenhouse Gases in Climate Forcing, Science, 260, 311–314,
10.1126/science.260.5106.311, 1993.
Kim, K.-H., Kabir, E., and Kabir, S.: A review on the human health impact of
airborne particulate matter, Environ. Int., 74, 136–143, 2015.Kipling, Z., Stier, P., Johnson, C. E., Mann, G. W., Bellouin, N., Bauer, S. E., Bergman, T., Chin, M., Diehl, T., Ghan, S. J., Iversen, T., Kirkevåg, A., Kokkola, H., Liu, X., Luo, G., van Noije, T., Pringle, K. J., von Salzen, K., Schulz, M., Seland, Ø., Skeie, R. B., Takemura, T., Tsigaridis, K., and Zhang, K.: What controls the vertical distribution of aerosol? Relationships between process sensitivity in HadGEM3–UKCA and inter-model variation from AeroCom Phase II, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 2221–2241, 10.5194/acp-16-2221-2016, 2016.Klimont, Z., Kupiainen, K., Heyes, C., Purohit, P., Cofala, J., Rafaj, P., Borken-Kleefeld, J., and Schöpp, W.: Global anthropogenic emissions of particulate matter including black carbon, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 17, 8681–8723, 10.5194/acp-17-8681-2017, 2017.Koch, D. and Del Genio, A. D.: Black carbon semi-direct effects on cloud cover: review and synthesis, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 7685–7696, 10.5194/acp-10-7685-2010, 2010.Kokkola, H., Kühn, T., Laakso, A., Bergman, T., Lehtinen, K. E. J., Mielonen, T., Arola, A., Stadtler, S., Korhonen, H., Ferrachat, S., Lohmann, U., Neubauer, D., Tegen, I., Siegenthaler-Le Drian, C., Schultz, M. G., Bey, I., Stier, P., Daskalakis, N., Heald, C. L., and Romakkaniemi, S.: SALSA2.0: The sectional aerosol module of the aerosol–chemistry–climate model ECHAM6.3.0-HAM2.3-MOZ1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 3833–3863, 10.5194/gmd-11-3833-2018, 2018.
Krewski, D., Jerrett, M., Burnett, R., Ma, R., Hughes, E., Shi, Y., Turner,
M. C., Pope III, C., Thurston, G., Calle, E., Thun,
M., Beckerman, B., DeLuca, P., Finkelstein, N., Ito, K., Moore, D.,
Newbold, B., Ramsay, T., Ross, Z., and Tempalski, B.: Extended
follow-up and spatial analysis of the American Cancer Society study linking
particulate air pollution and mortality, 140 pp., Health Effects Institute
Boston, MA, 2009.Kristiansen, N. I., Stohl, A., Olivié, D. J. L., Croft, B., Søvde, O. A., Klein, H., Christoudias, T., Kunkel, D., Leadbetter, S. J., Lee, Y. H., Zhang, K., Tsigaridis, K., Bergman, T., Evangeliou, N., Wang, H., Ma, P.-L., Easter, R. C., Rasch, P. J., Liu, X., Pitari, G., Di Genova, G., Zhao, S. Y., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Faluvegi, G. S., Kokkola, H., Martin, R. V., Pierce, J. R., Schulz, M., Shindell, D., Tost, H., and Zhang, H.: Evaluation of observed and modelled aerosol lifetimes using radioactive tracers of opportunity and an ensemble of 19 global models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 3525–3561, 10.5194/acp-16-3525-2016, 2016.Kuwata, M., Kondo, Y., and Takegawa, N.: Critical condensed mass for activation
of black carbon as cloud condensation nuclei in Tokyo, J. Geophys.
Res.-Atmos., 114, D20202, 10.1029/2009JD012086,
2009.Kühn, T., Partanen, A.-I., Laakso, A., Lu, Z., Bergman, T., Mikkonen, S.,
Kokkola, H., Korhonen, H., Räisänen, P., Streets, D. G., Romakkaniemi, S.,
and Laaksonen, A.: Climate impacts of changing aerosol emissions since 1996,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 41, 4711–4718, 10.1002/2014GL060349,
2014.Lee, S.-H., Gordon, H., Yu, H., Lehtipalo, K., Haley, R., Li, Y., and Zhang,
R.: New Particle Formation in the Atmosphere: From Molecular Clusters to
Global Climate, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 124,
7098–7146, 10.1029/2018JD029356,
2019.Lim, S. S., Vos, T., Flaxman, A. D., Danaei, G., Shibuya, K., Adair-Rohani, H.,
AlMazroa, M. A., Amann, M., Anderson, H. R., Andrews, K. G., Aryee, M.,
Atkinson, C., Bacchus, L. J., Bahalim, A. N., Balakrishnan, K., Balmes, J.,
Barker-Collo, S., Baxter, A., Bell, M. L., Blore, J. D., Blyth, F., Bonner,
C., Borges, G., Bourne, R., Boussinesq, M., Brauer, M., Brooks, P., Bruce,
N. G., Brunekreef, B., Bryan-Hancock, C., Bucello, C., Buchbinder, R., Bull,
F., Burnett, R. T., Byers, T. E., Calabria, B., Carapetis, J., Carnahan, E.,
Chafe, Z., Charlson, F., Chen, H., Chen, J. S., Cheng, A. T.-A., Child,
J. C., Cohen, A., Colson, K. E., Cowie, B. C., Darby, S., Darling, S., Davis,
A., Degenhardt, L., Dentener, F., Jarlais, D. C. D., Devries, K., Dherani,
M., Ding, E. L., Dorsey, E. R., Driscoll, T., Edmond, K., Ali, S. E., Engell,
R. E., Erwin, P. J., Fahimi, S., Falder, G., Farzadfar, F., Ferrari, A.,
Finucane, M. M., Flaxman, S., Fowkes, F. G. R., Freedman, G., Freeman, M. K.,
Gakidou, E., Ghosh, S., Giovannucci, E., Gmel, G., Graham, K., Grainger, R.,
Grant, B., Gunnell, D., Gutierrez, H. R., Hall, W., Hoek, H. W., Hogan, A.,
Hosgood, H. D., Hoy, D., Hu, H., Hubbell, B. J., Hutchings, S. J., Ibeanusi,
S. E., Jacklyn, G. L., Jasrasaria, R., Jonas, J. B., Kan, H., Kanis, J. A.,
Kassebaum, N., Kawakami, N., Khang, Y.-H., Khatibzadeh, S., Khoo, J.-P., Kok,
C., Laden, F., Lalloo, R., Lan, Q., Lathlean, T., Leasher, J. L., Leigh, J.,
Li, Y., Lin, J. K., Lipshultz, S. E., London, S., Lozano, R., Lu, Y., Mak,
J., Malekzadeh, R., Mallinger, L., Marcenes, W., March, L., Marks, R.,
Martin, R., McGale, P., McGrath, J., Mehta, S., Memish, Z. A., Mensah, G. A.,
Merriman, T. R., Micha, R., Michaud, C., Mishra, V., Hanafiah, K. M., Mokdad,
A. A., Morawska, L., Mozaffarian, D., Murphy, T., Naghavi, M., Neal, B.,
Nelson, P. K., Nolla, J. M., Norman, R. E., Olives, C., Omer, S. B., Orchard,
J., Osborne, R., Ostro, B., Page, A., Pandey, K. D., Parry, C. D., Passmore,
E., Patra, J., Pearce, N., Pelizzari, P. M., Petzold, M., Phillips, M. R.,
Pope, D., Pope, C. A., Powles, J., Rao, M., Razavi, H., Rehfuess, E. A.,
Rehm, J. T., Ritz, B., Rivara, F. P., Roberts, T., Robinson, C.,
Rodriguez-Portales, J. A., Romieu, I., Room, R., Rosenfeld, L. C., Roy, A.,
Rushton, L., Salomon, J. A., Sampson, U., Sanchez-Riera, L., Sanman, E.,
Sapkota, A., Seedat, S., Shi, P., Shield, K., Shivakoti, R., Singh, G. M.,
Sleet, D. A., Smith, E., Smith, K. R., Stapelberg, N. J., Steenland, K.,
Stöckl, H., Stovner, L. J., Straif, K., Straney, L., Thurston, G. D.,
Tran, J. H., Dingenen, R. V., van Donkelaar, A., Veerman, J. L., Vijayakumar,
L., Weintraub, R., Weissman, M. M., White, R. A., Whiteford, H., Wiersma,
S. T., Wilkinson, J. D., Williams, H. C., Williams, W., Wilson, N., Woolf,
A. D., Yip, P., Zielinski, J. M., Lopez, A. D., Murray, C. J., and Ezzati,
M.: A comparative risk assessment of burden of disease and injury
attributable to 67 risk factors and risk factor clusters in 21 regions,
1990–2010: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study
2010, Lancet, 380, 2224–2260, 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61766-8,
2012.Lohmann, U., Rotstayn, L., Storelvmo, T., Jones, A., Menon, S., Quaas, J., Ekman, A. M. L., Koch, D., and Ruedy, R.: Total aerosol effect: radiative forcing or radiative flux perturbation?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 3235–3246, 10.5194/acp-10-3235-2010, 2010.Menon, S., Koch, D., Beig, G., Sahu, S., Fasullo, J., and Orlikowski, D.: Black carbon aerosols and the third polar ice cap, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4559–4571, 10.5194/acp-10-4559-2010, 2010.Partanen, A.-I., Landry, J.-S., and Matthews, H. D.: Climate and health
implications of future aerosol emission scenarios, Environ. Res.
Lett., 13, 024028, 10.1088/1748-9326/aaa511,
2018.Pope III, C. A., Burnett, R. T., Thun, M. J., Calle, E. E., Krewski, D., Ito,
K., and Thurston, G. D.: Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and
Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution, JAMA, 287, 1132–1141,
10.1001/jama.287.9.1132, 2002.
Quinn, P. K., Stohl, A., Arneth, A., Berntsen, T., Burkhart, J. F., Christensen, J., Flanner, M.,
Kupiainen, K., Lihavainen, H., Shepherd, Shevchenko, V. M., Skov, V., and Vestreng, V.:
The impact of black carbon on Arctic climate, Arctic Monitoring and Assessment
Programme (AMAP), AMAP, 72 pp., Oslo, Norway, 2011.
Ramanathan, V. and Carmichael, G.: Global and regional climate changes due to
black carbon, Nat. Geosci., 1, 221–227, 2008.Ramanathan, V., Cess, R. D., Harrison, E. F., Minnis, P., Barkstrom, B. R.,
Ahmad, E., and Hartmann, D.: Cloud-Radiative Forcing and Climate: Results
from the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment, Science, 243, 57–63,
10.1126/science.243.4887.57, 1989.Samset, B. H. and Myhre, G.: Vertical dependence of black carbon, sulphate and
biomass burning aerosol radiative forcing, Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L24802,
10.1029/2011GL049697,
2011.Samset, B. H. and Myhre, G.: Climate response to externally mixed black carbon
as a function of altitude, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 120,
2913–2927, 10.1002/2014JD022849,
2015.Sand, M., Berntsen, T. K., Von Salzen, K., Flanner, M. G., Langner, J., and
Victor, D. G.: Response of Arctic temperature to changes in emissions of
short-lived climate forcers, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 286, 10.1038/nclimate2880, 2016.Saponaro, G., Sporre, M. K., Neubauer, D., Kokkola, H., Kolmonen, P., Sogacheva, L., Arola, A., de Leeuw, G., Karset, I. H. H., Laaksonen, A., and Lohmann, U.: Evaluation of aerosol and cloud properties in three climate models using MODIS observations and its corresponding COSP simulator, as well as their application in aerosol–cloud interactions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 1607–1626, 10.5194/acp-20-1607-2020, 2020.Schultz, M. G., Stadtler, S., Schröder, S., Taraborrelli, D., Franco, B., Krefting, J., Henrot, A., Ferrachat, S., Lohmann, U., Neubauer, D., Siegenthaler-Le Drian, C., Wahl, S., Kokkola, H., Kühn, T., Rast, S., Schmidt, H., Stier, P., Kinnison, D., Tyndall, G. S., Orlando, J. J., and Wespes, C.: The chemistry–climate model ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3-MOZ1.0, Geosci. Model Dev., 11, 1695–1723, 10.5194/gmd-11-1695-2018, 2018.Shindell, D., Kuylenstierna, J. C. I., Vignati, E., van Dingenen, R., Amann,
M., Klimont, Z., Anenberg, S. C., Muller, N., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Raes,
F., Schwartz, J., Faluvegi, G., Pozzoli, L., Kupiainen, K.,
Höglund-Isaksson, L., Emberson, L., Streets, D., Ramanathan, V., Hicks,
K., Oanh, N. T. K., Milly, G., Williams, M., Demkine, V., and Fowler, D.:
Simultaneously Mitigating Near-Term Climate Change and Improving Human Health
and Food Security, Science, 335, 183–189, 10.1126/science.1210026,
2012.Smith, C. J., Kramer, R. J., Myhre, G., Forster, P. M., Soden, B. J., Andrews,
T., Boucher, O., Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D., Hodnebrog, Ø., Kasoar,
M., Kharin, V., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Mülmenstädt, J.,
Olivié, D., Richardson, T., Samset, B. H., Shindell, D., Stier, P.,
Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., and Watson-Parris, D.: Understanding Rapid
Adjustments to Diverse Forcing Agents, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45,
12023–12031, 10.1029/2018GL079826,
2018.Sobhani, N., Kulkarni, S., and Carmichael, G. R.: Source sector and region contributions to black carbon and PM2.5 in the Arctic, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 18123–18148, 10.5194/acp-18-18123-2018, 2018.Stevens, B., Giorgetta, M., Esch, M., Mauritsen, T., Crueger, T., Rast, S.,
Salzmann, M., Schmidt, H., Bader, J., Block, K., Brokopf, R., Fast, I.,
Kinne, S., Kornblueh, L., Lohmann, U., Pincus, R., Reichler, T., and
Roeckner, E.: Atmospheric component of the MPI-M Earth System Model: ECHAM6,
J. Adv. Model. Earth Sy., 5, 146–172,
10.1002/jame.20015,
2013.Stocker, T., Qin, D., Plattner, G.-K., Alexander, L., Allen, S., Bindoff, N.,
Bréon, F.-M., Church, J., Cubasch, U., Emori, S., Forster, P.,
Friedlingstein, P., Gillett, N., Gregory, J., Hartmann, D., Jansen, E.,
Kirtman, B., Knutti, R., Krishna Kumar, K., Lemke, P., Marotzke, J.,
Masson-Delmotte, V., Meehl, G., Mokhov, I., Piao, S., Ramaswamy, V., Randall,
D., Rhein, M., Rojas, M., Sabine, C., Shindell, D., Talley, L., Vaughan, D.,
and Xie, S.-P.: Technical Summary, book section TS, 33–115, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA,
10.1017/CBO9781107415324.005, 2013.Stohl, A.: Characteristics of atmospheric transport into the Arctic
troposphere, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos., 111, D11306,
10.1029/2005JD006888,
2006.Stohl, A., Klimont, Z., Eckhardt, S., Kupiainen, K., Shevchenko, V. P., Kopeikin, V. M., and Novigatsky, A. N.: Black carbon in the Arctic: the underestimated role of gas flaring and residential combustion emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 13, 8833–8855, 10.5194/acp-13-8833-2013, 2013.Stohl, A., Aamaas, B., Amann, M., Baker, L. H., Bellouin, N., Berntsen, T. K., Boucher, O., Cherian, R., Collins, W., Daskalakis, N., Dusinska, M., Eckhardt, S., Fuglestvedt, J. S., Harju, M., Heyes, C., Hodnebrog, Ø., Hao, J., Im, U., Kanakidou, M., Klimont, Z., Kupiainen, K., Law, K. S., Lund, M. T., Maas, R., MacIntosh, C. R., Myhre, G., Myriokefalitakis, S., Olivié, D., Quaas, J., Quennehen, B., Raut, J.-C., Rumbold, S. T., Samset, B. H., Schulz, M., Seland, Ø., Shine, K. P., Skeie, R. B., Wang, S., Yttri, K. E., and Zhu, T.: Evaluating the climate and air quality impacts of short-lived pollutants, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 10529–10566, 10.5194/acp-15-10529-2015, 2015.Storelvmo, T., Lohmann, U., and Bennartz, R.: What governs the spread in
shortwave forcings in the transient IPCC AR4 models?, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 36, L01806, 10.1029/2008GL036069,
2009.Taylor, K. E., Stouffer, R. J., and Meehl, G. A.: An Overview of CMIP5 and the
Experiment Design, B. Am. Meteorol. Soc., 93,
485–498, 10.1175/BAMS-D-11-00094.1, 2012.Tegen, I., Neubauer, D., Ferrachat, S., Siegenthaler-Le Drian, C., Bey, I., Schutgens, N., Stier, P., Watson-Parris, D., Stanelle, T., Schmidt, H., Rast, S., Kokkola, H., Schultz, M., Schroeder, S., Daskalakis, N., Barthel, S., Heinold, B., and Lohmann, U.: The global aerosol–climate model ECHAM6.3–HAM2.3 – Part 1: Aerosol evaluation, Geosci. Model Dev., 12, 1643–1677, 10.5194/gmd-12-1643-2019, 2019.
Tröstl, J., Chuang, W. K., Gordon, H., Heinritzi, M., Yan, C., Molteni, U.,
Ahlm, L., Frege, C., Bianchi, F., Wagner, R., Simon, M.,
Lehtipalo, K., Williamson, C., Craven, J. S., Duplissy, J., Adamov, A.,
Almeida, J., Bernhammer, A.-K., Breitenlechner, M., Brilke, S.,
Dias, A., Ehrhart, S., Flagan, R. C., Franchin, A., Fuchs, C.,
Guida, R., Gysel, M., Hansel, A., Hoyle, C. R., Jokinen, T.,
Junninen, H., Kangasluoma, J., Keskinen, H., Kim, J., Krapf, M.,
Kürten, A., Laaksonen, A., Lawler, M., Leiminger, M., Mathot, S.,
Möhler, O., Nieminen, T., Onnela, A., Petäjä, T., Piel, F. M., Miettinen, P., Rissanen, M. P., Rondo, L., Sarnela, N., Schobesberger, S.,
Sengupta, K., Sipilä, M., Smith, J. N., Steiner, G., Tomè, A.,
Virtanen, A., Wagner, A. C., Weingartner, E., Wimmer, D.,
Winkler, P. M., Ye, P., Carslaw, K. S., Curtius, J., Dommen, J.,
Kirkby, J., Kulmala, M., Riipinen, I., Worsnop, D. R., Donahue, N. M., and
Baltensperger, U.: The role of
low-volatility organic compounds in initial particle growth in the
atmosphere, Nature, 533, 527–531, 2016.Tsigaridis, K., Daskalakis, N., Kanakidou, M., Adams, P. J., Artaxo, P., Bahadur, R., Balkanski, Y., Bauer, S. E., Bellouin, N., Benedetti, A., Bergman, T., Berntsen, T. K., Beukes, J. P., Bian, H., Carslaw, K. S., Chin, M., Curci, G., Diehl, T., Easter, R. C., Ghan, S. J., Gong, S. L., Hodzic, A., Hoyle, C. R., Iversen, T., Jathar, S., Jimenez, J. L., Kaiser, J. W., Kirkevåg, A., Koch, D., Kokkola, H., Lee, Y. H., Lin, G., Liu, X., Luo, G., Ma, X., Mann, G. W., Mihalopoulos, N., Morcrette, J.-J., Müller, J.-F., Myhre, G., Myriokefalitakis, S., Ng, N. L., O'Donnell, D., Penner, J. E., Pozzoli, L., Pringle, K. J., Russell, L. M., Schulz, M., Sciare, J., Seland, Ø., Shindell, D. T., Sillman, S., Skeie, R. B., Spracklen, D., Stavrakou, T., Steenrod, S. D., Takemura, T., Tiitta, P., Tilmes, S., Tost, H., van Noije, T., van Zyl, P. G., von Salzen, K., Yu, F., Wang, Z., Wang, Z., Zaveri, R. A., Zhang, H., Zhang, K., Zhang, Q., and Zhang, X.: The AeroCom evaluation and intercomparison of organic aerosol in global models, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 10845–10895, 10.5194/acp-14-10845-2014, 2014.Twomey, S.: The Influence of Pollution on the Shortwave Albedo of Clouds,
J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 1149–1152,
10.1175/1520-0469(1977)034<1149:TIOPOT>2.0.CO;2,
1977.Van Dingenen, R., Dentener, F., Crippa, M., Leitao, J., Marmer, E., Rao, S., Solazzo, E., and Valentini, L.: TM5-FASST: a global atmospheric source–receptor model for rapid impact analysis of emission changes on air quality and short-lived climate pollutants, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 16173–16211, 10.5194/acp-18-16173-2018, 2018.Winiger, P., Barrett, T. E., Sheesley, R. J., Huang, L., Sharma, S., Barrie,
L. A., Yttri, K. E., Evangeliou, N., Eckhardt, S., Stohl, A., Klimont, Z.,
Heyes, C., Semiletov, I. P., Dudarev, O. V., Charkin, A., Shakhova, N.,
Holmstrand, H., Andersson, A., and Gustafsson, Ö.: Source apportionment
of circum-Arctic atmospheric black carbon from isotopes and modeling, Sci.
Adv., 5, eaau8052, 10.1126/sciadv.aau8052, 2019.Yang, Q., Bitz, C. M., and Doherty, S. J.: Offsetting effects of aerosols on Arctic and global climate in the late 20th century, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 3969–3975, 10.5194/acp-14-3969-2014, 2014.Zhang, K., Wan, H., Liu, X., Ghan, S. J., Kooperman, G. J., Ma, P.-L., Rasch, P. J., Neubauer, D., and Lohmann, U.: Technical Note: On the use of nudging for aerosol–climate model intercomparison studies, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 8631–8645, 10.5194/acp-14-8631-2014, 2014.