organic carbon during amaze-08: preliminary model analysis amaze science team meeting, boulder july...

7
Organic Carbon during AMAZE-08: Preliminary model analysis AMAZE Science Team Meeting, Boulder July 24, 2008 Colette L. Heald ([email protected]) With observations from: Qi Chen & Scot Martin (Harvard University), Delphine Farmer & Jose Jimenez (CU Boulder), Thomas Karl & Alex Guenther (NCAR), Paulo Artaxo (University Sao Paulo) And discussion with: Andi Andreae, Tony Prenni

Post on 19-Dec-2015

220 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Organic Carbon during AMAZE-08: Preliminary model analysis AMAZE Science Team Meeting, Boulder July 24, 2008 Colette L. Heald (heald@atmos.colostate.edu)

Organic Carbon during AMAZE-08:Preliminary model analysis

AMAZE Science Team Meeting, BoulderJuly 24, 2008

Colette L. Heald([email protected])

With observations from:Qi Chen & Scot Martin (Harvard University),

Delphine Farmer & Jose Jimenez (CU Boulder),Thomas Karl & Alex Guenther (NCAR),

Paulo Artaxo (University Sao Paulo)And discussion with: Andi Andreae, Tony Prenni

Page 2: Organic Carbon during AMAZE-08: Preliminary model analysis AMAZE Science Team Meeting, Boulder July 24, 2008 Colette L. Heald (heald@atmos.colostate.edu)

GEOS-Chem AEROSOL SIMULATION2ºx2.5º global simulation with climatological emissions

Site isolated from anthropogenic sources, monthly mean aerosol concentrations dominated by OC and dust…Unfortunately with consistent

cloud cover, no satellite AOD available to validate distributions

FEB: SurfaceConcentrations

Page 3: Organic Carbon during AMAZE-08: Preliminary model analysis AMAZE Science Team Meeting, Boulder July 24, 2008 Colette L. Heald (heald@atmos.colostate.edu)

ORGANIC CARBON: GEOS-Chem

Simulated surface OC at site ~0.5-1 µg/m3, dominated by POA and monoterpene SOA. NOTE: there is no PBAP source here.

Page 4: Organic Carbon during AMAZE-08: Preliminary model analysis AMAZE Science Team Meeting, Boulder July 24, 2008 Colette L. Heald (heald@atmos.colostate.edu)

COMPARISON WITH AMS OBSERVATIONS

Early Feb: observe

significantly more organic aerosol than simulated (rain ends this

period)

Field site in Amazonia, Feb-Mar

Observations = 1-4 µg/m3

Point #1: For majority of campaign GEOS-Chem simulates similar amount of OC (~1 µg/m3)Point #2: Observed concentrations are relatively low (somewhat explains #1)Point #3: There’s an interesting discrepancy early in the campaign….source??Point #4: Consistent airflow throughout campaign simplifies analysis – no change in source influence

Consistent air flow throughout campaign:

Page 5: Organic Carbon during AMAZE-08: Preliminary model analysis AMAZE Science Team Meeting, Boulder July 24, 2008 Colette L. Heald (heald@atmos.colostate.edu)

ARE FIRES A LIKELY SOURCE?

Feb 1-9

Feb 21-29

MODIS fire counts: http://maps.geog.umd.edu/firms/maps.asp

Fires in the region during early Feb. These are not reflected in model emission inventories.

Elevated OC is coincident with elevated acetonitrile and potassium. MODIS detects actives fires in the immediate region.

Page 6: Organic Carbon during AMAZE-08: Preliminary model analysis AMAZE Science Team Meeting, Boulder July 24, 2008 Colette L. Heald (heald@atmos.colostate.edu)

…WHAT ABOUT FIRES IN AFRICA?Surface OC concentrations simulated by GEOS-Chem

(with climatological fire source)

OC from African fires could be transported…or potassium from African dust?

Fires from early Feb transported across Atlantic?

Page 7: Organic Carbon during AMAZE-08: Preliminary model analysis AMAZE Science Team Meeting, Boulder July 24, 2008 Colette L. Heald (heald@atmos.colostate.edu)

CONCLUSIONS…(SO FAR)

• No significant “unexplained” sub-micron OC observed at field site• Elevated OC in early Feb likely fire related

hope that a GEOS-Chem simulation with 2008 fire emissions can help determine if South American or African fire source is likelyNote that the AMS m/z 60 / Org ratio does not indicate a strong fire influence

Interestingly,This leaves little room for underestimated BSOA formation or sub-micron PBAP

1.0E-2

1.0E-1

1.0E+0

1.0E+1

1.0E-1 1.0E+0 1.0E+1 1.0E+2

Diameter d , µm

dV

/dlo

gd, µ

m3 /c

m3

0%20%

40%60%

80%100%120%

140%160%

180%200%

Total

Cellular

Fraction

From Andi Andreae (unpublished data)

How does this mesh with our thinking on PBAP?