 |
| Titel |
Global terrestrial isoprene emission models: sensitivity to variability in climate and vegetation |
| VerfasserIn |
A. Arneth, G. Schurgers, J. Lathière, T. Duhl, D. J. Beerling, C. N. Hewitt, M. Martin, A. Guenther |
| Medientyp |
Artikel
|
| Sprache |
Englisch
|
| ISSN |
1680-7316
|
| Digitales Dokument |
URL |
| Erschienen |
In: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics ; 11, no. 15 ; Nr. 11, no. 15 (2011-08-08), S.8037-8052 |
| Datensatznummer |
250009990
|
| Publikation (Nr.) |
 copernicus.org/acp-11-8037-2011.pdf |
|
|
|
|
|
| Zusammenfassung |
| Due to its effects on the atmospheric lifetime of methane, the burdens of
tropospheric ozone and growth of secondary organic aerosol, isoprene is
central among the biogenic compounds that need to be taken into account for
assessment of anthropogenic air pollution-climate change interactions. Lack
of process-understanding regarding leaf isoprene production as well as of
suitable observations to constrain and evaluate regional or global
simulation results add large uncertainties to past, present and future
emissions estimates. Focusing on contemporary climate conditions, we compare
three global isoprene models that differ in their representation of
vegetation and isoprene emission algorithm. We specifically aim to
investigate the between- and within model variation that is introduced by
varying some of the models' main features, and to determine which spatial
and/or temporal features are robust between models and different
experimental set-ups. In their individual standard configurations, the
models broadly agree with respect to the chief isoprene sources and emission
seasonality, with maximum monthly emission rates around 20–25 Tg C, when
averaged by 30-degree latitudinal bands. They also indicate relatively small
(approximately 5 to 10 % around the mean) interannual variability of total
global emissions. The models are sensitive to changes in one or more of
their main model components and drivers (e.g., underlying vegetation fields,
climate input) which can yield increases or decreases in total annual
emissions of cumulatively by more than 30 %. Varying drivers also strongly
alters the seasonal emission pattern. The variable response needs to be
interpreted in view of the vegetation emission capacities, as well as
diverging absolute and regional distribution of light, radiation and
temperature, but the direction of the simulated emission changes was not as
uniform as anticipated. Our results highlight the need for modellers to
evaluate their implementations of isoprene emission models carefully when
performing simulations that use non-standard emission model configurations. |
| |
|
| Teil von |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|