Constraints and biases in a tropospheric two-box model of OH

47Citations
Citations of this article
59Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The hydroxyl radical (OH) is the main atmospheric oxidant and the primary sink of the greenhouse gas CH 4 . In an attempt to constrain atmospheric levels of OH, two recent studies combined a tropospheric two-box model with hemispheric-mean observations of methyl chloroform (MCF) and CH 4 . These studies reached different conclusions concerning the most likely explanation of the renewed CH 4 growth rate, which reflects the uncertain and underdetermined nature of the problem. Here, we investigated how the use of a tropospheric two-box model can affect the derived constraints on OH due to simplifying assumptions inherent to a two-box model. To this end, we derived species- A nd timedependent quantities from a full 3-D transport model to drive two-box model simulations. Furthermore, we quantified differences between the 3-D simulated tropospheric burden and the burden seen by the surface measurement network of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Compared to commonly used parameters in two-box models, we found significant deviations in the magnitude and timedependence of the interhemispheric exchange rate, exposure to OH, and stratospheric loss rate. For MCF these deviations can be large due to changes in the balance of its sources and sinks over time. We also found that changes in the yearly averaged tropospheric burden of CH 4 and MCF can be obtained within 0.96 ppb yr -1 and 0.14%yr -1 by the NOAA surface network, but that substantial systematic biases exist in the interhemispheric mixing ratio gradients that are input to two-box model inversions. To investigate the impact of the identified biases on constraints on OH, we accounted for these biases in a two-box model inversion of MCF and CH 4 . We found that the sensitivity of interannual OH anomalies to the biases is modest (1 %-2 %), relative to the uncertainties on derived OH (3 %-4 %). However, in an inversion where we implemented all four bias corrections simultaneously, we found a shift to a positive trend in OH concentrations over the 1994-2015 period, compared to the standard inversion. Moreover, the absolute magnitude of derived global mean OH, and by extent, that of global CH 4 emissions, was affected much more strongly by the bias corrections than their anomalies (∼ 10 %). Through our analysis, we identified and quantified limitations in the two-box model approach as well as an opportunity for full 3-D simulations to address these limitations. However, we also found that this derivation is an extensive and species-dependent exercise and that the biases were not always entirely resolvable. In future attempts to improve constraints on the atmospheric oxidative capacity through the use of simple models, a crucial first step is to consider and account for biases similar to those we have identified for the two-box model.

Figures

  • Table 1. The relevant settings we use in the inversion of our two-box model. The upper section contains the parameters optimized in the inversion, which are also perturbed in the Monte-Carlo ensemble. These parameters have Gaussian uncertainties, and their mean and 1- σ uncertainty are given. The middle section contains parameters that are perturbed in the Monte Carlo, but not optimized. The middle parameters have uniform uncertainties, of which the lower and upper bound are given. The bottom section contains parameters that are neither optimized nor perturbed. For these parameters, the left column gives the standard setting, whereas the alternative column indicates whether we also ran an inversion using a TM5-derived timeseries (see Section 2.2.2).
  • Figure 1. Hemispheric, annual mean timeseries of CH4 (left) and MCF (right), as derived from the NOAA surface sampling network. Solid lines denote averages as derived directly from the NOAA surface sampling network (which are used in our standard inversion). Dashed lines denote the same timeseries, but adjusted by correction factors that were derived from our TM5 simulations. Figure 3 shows the ratios between the standard and corrected timeseries.
  • Figure 2. The IH exchange rate for MCF, CH4 and SF6, as derived from a two-box parametrization of TM5 output.
  • Figure 3. The surface sampling bias in the global mixing ratio (left) and in the IH gradient (right) of MCF and of CH4. The bias is quantified as the ratio between values derived from the NOAA surface sampling network and values derived from the full (TM5) troposphere. Figure 1 visualizes the impact of correcting for the sampling bias in real-world NOAA observations.
  • Table 2. Mean observational errors as derived from TM5 simulations over the 1994-2015 period. The errors are quantified as the mean difference between annual means derived from model-sampled observations and annual means derived from the full tropospheric grid. CH4 uncertainties are given both in ppb/yr and relative to the global mean mixing ratio. Uncertainties for MCF are only given relative to the global mean, because of its strong temporal decline.
  • Figure 4. The ratio between tracer lifetime with respect to OH loss in the NH troposphere and SH troposphere. Additionally, the IH ratio in OH concentrations is shown.
  • Figure 5. The tropospheric loss rate to the stratosphere, as derived from the TM5 simulations.
  • Figure 6. The results of two inversions of the two-box model: tropospheric OH anomalies (left) and CH4 emission anomalies (right). In the standard inversion, we keep IH transport, NH/SH OH ratio and stratospheric loss of MCF constant, and we use NOAA observations. In the second inversion, we implement all four bias corrections instead (as described in Section 2.4). Both the mean anomalies and the 1- standard deviation envelopes are shown, where anomalies are taken relative to the time-averaged mean in each respective ensemble member. Plotted in grey are the anomalies as derived by Rigby et al. (2017) (from the NOAA dataset) and by Turner et al. (2017) (from a combined NOAA+AGAGE dataset), adjusted so that they, too, average to zero. The 1-standard deviation envelope from the Rigby et al. (2017) estimate is hatched in grey.

References Powered by Scopus

20585Citations
6720Readers
Get full text
1684Citations
2071Readers
Get full text
864Citations
1194Readers

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Naus, S., Montzka, S. A., Pandey, S., Basu, S., Dlugokencky, E. J., & Krol, M. (2019). Constraints and biases in a tropospheric two-box model of OH. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 19(1), 407–424. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-407-2019

Readers over time

‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2406121824

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 17

47%

Researcher 12

33%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

17%

Lecturer / Post doc 1

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Earth and Planetary Sciences 20

63%

Environmental Science 7

22%

Chemistry 3

9%

Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2

6%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Social Media
Shares, Likes & Comments: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0