5
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Tropospheric Ozone Assessment Report

      1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 1 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 6 , 16 , 17 , 15 , 5 , 6 , 18 , 1 , 2 , 7 , 8 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 20 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 1 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 33 , 23
      Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
      University of California Press

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Our understanding of the processes that control the burden and budget of tropospheric ozone has changed dramatically over the last 60 years. Models are the key tools used to understand these changes, and these underscore that there are many processes important in controlling the tropospheric ozone budget. In this critical review, we assess our evolving understanding of these processes, both physical and chemical. We review model simulations from the International Global Atmospheric Chemistry Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate Model Intercomparison Project and Chemistry Climate Modelling Initiative to assess the changes in the tropospheric ozone burden and its budget from 1850 to 2010. Analysis of these data indicates that there has been significant growth in the ozone burden from 1850 to 2000 (approximately 43 ± 9%) but smaller growth between 1960 and 2000 (approximately 16 ± 10%) and that the models simulate burdens of ozone well within recent satellite estimates. The Chemistry Climate Modelling Initiative model ozone budgets indicate that the net chemical production of ozone in the troposphere plateaued in the 1990s and has not changed since then inspite of increases in the burden. There has been a shift in net ozone production in the troposphere being greatest in the northern mid and high latitudes to the northern tropics, driven by the regional evolution of precursor emissions. An analysis of the evolution of tropospheric ozone through the 21st century, as simulated by Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 models, reveals a large source of uncertainty associated with models themselves (i.e., in the way that they simulate the chemical and physical processes that control tropospheric ozone). This structural uncertainty is greatest in the near term (two to three decades), but emissions scenarios dominate uncertainty in the longer term (2050–2100) evolution of tropospheric ozone. This intrinsic model uncertainty prevents robust predictions of near-term changes in the tropospheric ozone burden, and we review how progress can be made to reduce this limitation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references396

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found
          Is Open Access

          Overview of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) experimental design and organization

          By coordinating the design and distribution of global climate model simulations of the past, current, and future climate, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) has become one of the foundational elements of climate science. However, the need to address an ever-expanding range of scientific questions arising from more and more research communities has made it necessary to revise the organization of CMIP. After a long and wide community consultation, a new and more federated structure has been put in place. It consists of three major elements: (1) a handful of common experiments, the DECK (Diagnostic, Evaluation and Characterization of Klima) and CMIP historical simulations (1850–near present) that will maintain continuity and help document basic characteristics of models across different phases of CMIP; (2) common standards, coordination, infrastructure, and documentation that will facilitate the distribution of model outputs and the characterization of the model ensemble; and (3) an ensemble of CMIP-Endorsed Model Intercomparison Projects (MIPs) that will be specific to a particular phase of CMIP (now CMIP6) and that will build on the DECK and CMIP historical simulations to address a large range of specific questions and fill the scientific gaps of the previous CMIP phases. The DECK and CMIP historical simulations, together with the use of CMIP data standards, will be the entry cards for models participating in CMIP. Participation in CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs by individual modelling groups will be at their own discretion and will depend on their scientific interests and priorities. With the Grand Science Challenges of the World Climate Research Programme (WCRP) as its scientific backdrop, CMIP6 will address three broad questions: – How does the Earth system respond to forcing? – What are the origins and consequences of systematic model biases? – How can we assess future climate changes given internal climate variability, predictability, and uncertainties in scenarios? This CMIP6 overview paper presents the background and rationale for the new structure of CMIP, provides a detailed description of the DECK and CMIP6 historical simulations, and includes a brief introduction to the 21 CMIP6-Endorsed MIPs.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The representative concentration pathways: an overview

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Historical (1850–2000) gridded anthropogenic and biomass burning emissions of reactive gases and aerosols: methodology and application

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
                University of California Press
                2325-1026
                December 30 2020
                2020
                December 30 2020
                2020
                : 8
                : 1
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Yusuf Hamied Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom
                [2 ]National Centre for Atmospheric Science, United Kingdom
                [3 ]Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA
                [4 ]School of Geosciences, College of Arts and Sciences, University of South Florida, St. Petersburg, FL, USA
                [5 ]Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, USA
                [6 ]NOAA Chemical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA
                [7 ]Lancaster Environment Centre, Lancaster University, United Kingdom
                [8 ]Centre of Excellence in Environmental Data Science, Lancaster University,United Kingdom
                [9 ]Institute for Social Futures, Lancaster University, United Kingdom
                [10 ]Climate Modeling and Analysis Section, Center for Global Environmental Research, National Institute for Environmental Studies, Tsukuba, Japan
                [11 ]UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology Edinburgh, Bush Estate, Penicuik, Midlothian, United Kingdom
                [12 ]The James Hutton Institute, Craigiebuckler, Aberdeen, United Kingdom
                [13 ]rdscientific, Newbury, United Kingdom
                [14 ]Meteorological Research Institute, Japan Meteorological Agency, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, Japan
                [15 ]Dipartimento di Matematica e Fisica, Università Cattolica del S.C., Brescia, Italy
                [16 ]Climate Science Centre, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Aspendale, Victoria, Australia
                [17 ]Centre for Atmospheric Chemistry, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, New South Wales, Australia
                [18 ]Laboratoire d’Aérologie, Université de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, France
                [19 ]Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, USA
                [20 ]Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt, Institut für Physik der Atmosphäre, Oberpfaffenhofen, Germany
                [21 ]Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, Université de Toulouse, Météo-France, CNRS, Toulouse, France
                [22 ]Atmospheric & Oceanic Sciences, Princeton University and NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, USA
                [23 ]National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, Wellington, New Zealand
                [24 ]Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences, Nainital, Uttarakhand, India
                [25 ]NOAA Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, USA
                [26 ]NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, Boulder, CO, USA
                [27 ]Climate Research Division, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Montreal, Canada
                [28 ]School of Physical and Chemical Sciences, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
                [29 ]Department of Atmospheric Chemistry and Climate, Institute of Physical Chemistry Rocasolano, Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Madrid, Spain
                [30 ]School of Environmental Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, India
                [31 ]Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad, Pakistan
                [32 ]School of Chemistry, Cantock’s Close, University of Bristol, United Kingdom
                [33 ]Atmospheric Chemistry Observations & Modeling Laboratory National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
                [34 ]Karlsruher Institut für Technologie, IMK-IFU, Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany
                [35 ]Research & Advanced Engineering, Ford Motor Company, Dearborn, MI, USA
                [36 ]Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China
                Article
                10.1525/elementa.2020.034
                4ebbfb60-9696-40b6-aeaf-ab7b7f0e3ee9
                © 2020

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article