The importance of the representation of air pollution emissions for the modeled distribution and radiative effects of black carbon in the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Aerosol particles can contribute to the Arctic Amplification by direct and indirect radiative effects. Specifically, black carbon (BC) in the atmosphere, and when deposited on snow and sea ice, has a positive effect on the top of atmosphere radiation balance during polar day. Current climate models, however, are still struggling to reproduce Arctic aerosol conditions. We present an evaluation study with the global aerosol-climate model ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3 to examine emission-related uncertainties in the BC distribution and the direct radiative effect of BC. The model results are comprehensively compared against latest ground and air-borne aerosol observations for the period 2005–2017 with focus on BC. Four different setups of air pollution emissions are tested. The simulations in general match well with the observed amount and temporal variability of near-surface BC in the Arctic. Using actual daily instead of fixed biomass burning emissions is crucial to reproduce individual pollution events but has only a small influence on the seasonal cycle of BC. Compared to commonly used fixed anthropogenic emissions for the year 2000, an up-to-date inventory with transient air pollution emissions results in up to 30 % higher annual BC burden and an over 0.2 W m−2 higher annual mean all-sky net direct radiative effect of BC at top of the atmosphere over the Eastern Arctic Ocean. We estimate BC in the Arctic to lead to a net gain of up 0.8 W m−2 by the direct radiative effect of atmospheric BC plus the effect by an albedo reduction by BC-in-snow. Long-range transport is identified as one of the main sources of uncertainties for ECHAM6.3-HAM2.3, leading to an overestimation of BC in atmospheric layers above 500 hPa especially in summer. This is related to a misrepresentation in wet removal in one identified case at least, that was observed during the ARCTAS summer aircraft campaign. Over all, the current model version has significantly improved since previous intercomparison studies and performs now better than the AeroCom average in terms of the spatial and temporal distribution of Arctic BC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".