Impacts on Arctic climate by emissions of short-lived climate forcers based on modeling within the EUproject ECLIPSE and the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) Terje Berntsen, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research Oslo (CICERO)
Objectives 1. To providepolicymakers withestimatesofcontributionto Arctic temperature change by emissions of SLCFs 7 Regions: United States, Canada, Russia, Nordic countries, OtherEuropean countries, South and East Asia, Rest Of theworld (ROW) 5 Emissioncategory/sector: Energy+Industry+waste, Domesticcombustion, Transport, Gas Flaring, and wildfires EmittedSLCFs: Black Carbon(BC), OrganicCarbon(OC), SO 2, NOx, CO and VOCsAND methane
Objectives 1. To providepolicymakers withestimatesofcontributionto Arctic temperature change by emissions of SLCFs Regions: United States, Canada, Russia, Nordic countries, Other European countries, South and East Asia, Rest Of the World (ROW) Emission category/sector: Energy+Industry+waste, Domestic combustion, Transport, Gas Flaring, and wildfires EmittedSLCFs: Black Carbon(BC), OrganicCarbon(OC), SO 2, NOx, CO and VOCs 2. To quantifythepotentialfor reducingthearctic warmingby mitigation of SLCFs
Current legislation(cle) vs. reduction(red) scenario BC CH 4 Based on Maximum Technically Feasible Reductions. Mitigation options estimated to give a net reduction in global warming selected. Mitigation costs not considered. SO 2 Developed by IIASA within the EU-project ECLIPSE
Balance between Relevance and Uncertainty BC/Ozone group: Have accepted high uncertainty to provide numbers relevant for policy making
Driver (Emissions) Response ( T) Global to global (e.g. GWPs for Kyoto gases) Regional to global Regional to regional More relevant BUT more uncertain
Regional temperature potential (RTP) Shindell & Faluvegi (2010), Shindell (2012): Quantify impacts in broad latitude bands Radiative forcing (4 models) Temperature response Pre-calculated sensitivities ( C/(Wm -2 ) from oneclimate model (the NASA GISS model)
Contributionto Arctic warmingby global emissionsofslcfs Figure 11.3.1: Global (total) contributions to annual mean Arctic equilibrium surface temperature response (in K) due to BC, OC and SO 4 direct forcing and due to BC in snow. NorESM and SMHI-MATCH do not include BC in snow. SMHI-MATCH does not include contributions from south of 20 N, so the model mean was added for 90 S-20 N. The temperature changes were derived by translating the radiative forcings with the use of climate sensitivity parameters (see chapter 7 for details).
Contribution to Arctic warming by sector, region and aerosol component. Average of the four models Domestic Transport Forest fires Ene+ Ind+Waste Agr. Waste burning Flaring
Arctic Warming by ozone and aerosols reaching the Arctic and by forcing at lower latitudes
Arctic warmingper unitemissions Unit: C/Tg(yr) -1
Contributionto Arctic warmingby troposphericozoneand emissionsofozoneprecursors(nox, CO VOCs) 0,025 Arctic dt (K) 0,020 0,015 0,010 0,005 Ozone only 0,000 United States Canada Russia Nordic Countries Rest of Europe East and South Asia Rest of World Gas Flaring Grass+Forest Fires Agricultural Fires Transport Energy+Industrial+Waste Domestic 0,025 0,020 0,015 By NOx, CO and VOC emissions Arctic dt (K) 0,010 0,005 0,000-0,005-0,010 United States Canada Russia Nordic Countries Rest of Europe East and South Asia Rest of World Gas Flaring Agricultural Fires Transport Energy+Industrial+Waste Domestic
Simulated temperature change due to methane mitigation Zonal-mean temperature change due to reduction in anthropogenic methane emissions (i.e. MFR minus CLE). Shaded areas indicate standard deviations
Tool for Analysis of future response to mitigation options Arctic Impact of mitigation of domestic combustion
Mitigationpotentialby sector/region. Arctic temperature respons by mitigation of domestic combustion Arctic Council Nations Asia Rest of the World
Summary New emission dataset for SLCFs developed (ECLIPSE): Improved representation of emissions from e.g. natural gas flaring and domestic wood burning Detailed multi-model calculations performed to estimate contribution to Arctic warming from current emissions of all major SLCFs. Provides estimates by: Emission sector Region of emission SLCF component (e.g. BC, CO, etc.) For BC emissions at high latitudes (e.g. within the Arctic) give the highest warming per unit emitted due to combined atmospheric and snow/albedo effects SLCF Mitigation scenario developed by IIASA for ECLIPSE. Includes all mitigation technically feasible options, whenever net effect is a cooling globally (i.e. including co-emitted species). Anthropogenic BC emissions reduced by 80% globally. Based on the mitigation scenario, the total net reduction in Arctic warming is estimated to be about 0.25 C by 2050, with more than 50% coming from methane mitigation. To further assess if these SLCF mitigation provide cost-effective options complementary to CO 2 mitigation, detailed studies of costs and co-benefits (i.e. by improved air quality) are needed.
Contribution to Arctic ozone burdens and radiative forcings 1600 SMHI-MATCH 1600 Oslo-CTM 1400 1400 1200 1200 1000 1000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 United States Canada Russia Nordic Countries Rest of Europe East and South Asia Rest of World 0 United States Canada Russia Nordic Countries Rest of Europe East and South Asia Rest of World Gas Flaring Grass+Forest Fires Agricultural Fires Transport Energy+Industrial+Waste Domestic Gas Flaring Agricultural Fires Transport Energy+Industrial+Waste Domestic mw/m 2 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 SMHI-MATCH United States Canada Russia Nordic Rest of Countries Europe East and South Asia Rest of World Gas Flaring Grass+Forest Fires Agricultural Fires Transport Energy+Industrial+Waste Domestic mw/m 2 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Oslo-CTM United States Canada Russia Nordic Rest of Countries Europe East and South Asia Rest of World Gas Flaring Agricultural Fires Transport Energy+Industrial+Waste Domestic