English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The concentrations of sulfate, black carbon (BC) and other aerosols in theArctic are characterized by high values in late winter and spring (so-calledArctic Haze) and low values in summer. Models have long been struggling tocapture this seasonality and especially the high concentrations associatedwith Arctic Haze. In this study, we evaluate sulfate and BC concentrationsfrom eleven different models driven with the same emission inventory againsta comprehensive pan-Arctic measurement data set over a time period of 2 years(2008–2009). The set of models consisted of one Lagrangian particledispersion model, four chemistry transport models (CTMs), one atmosphericchemistry-weather forecast model and five chemistry climate models (CCMs), ofwhich two were nudged to meteorological analyses and three were runningfreely. The measurement data set consisted of surface measurements ofequivalent BC (eBC) from five stations (Alert, Barrow, Pallas, Tiksi andZeppelin), elemental carbon (EC) from Station Nord and Alert and aircraftmeasurements of refractory BC (rBC) from six different campaigns. We findthat the models generally captured the measured eBC or rBC and sulfateconcentrations quite well, compared to previous comparisons. However, theaerosol seasonality at the surface is still too weak in most models.Concentrations of eBC and sulfate averaged over three surface sites areunderestimated in winter/spring in all but one model (model means forJanuary–March underestimated by 59 and 37 % for BC and sulfate,respectively), whereas concentrations in summer are overestimated in themodel mean (by 88 and 44 % for July–September), but with overestimatesas well as underestimates present in individual models. The most pronouncedeBC underestimates, not included in the above multi-site average, are foundfor the station Tiksi in Siberia where the measured annual mean eBCconcentration is 3 times higher than the average annual mean for all otherstations. This suggests an underestimate of BC sources in Russia in theemission inventory used. Based on the campaign data, biomass burning wasidentified as another cause of the modeling problems. For sulfate, very largedifferences were found in the model ensemble, with an apparentanti-correlation between modeled surface concentrations and total atmosphericcolumns. There is a strong correlation between observed sulfate and eBCconcentrations with consistent sulfate/eBC slopes found for all Arcticstations, indicating that the sources contributing to sulfate and BC aresimilar throughout the Arctic and that the aerosols are internally mixed andundergo similar removal. However, only three models reproduced this finding,whereas sulfate and BC are weakly correlated in the other models. Overall, noclass of models (e.g., CTMs, CCMs) performed better than the others anddifferences are independent of model resolution

atmospheric chemistry and physics

Current model capabilities for simulating black carbon and sulfate concentrations in the Arctic atmosphere: a multi-model evaluation using a comprehensive measurement data set