Search

Three global chemistry-transport models (CTM) are used to quantify the radiative forcing (RF) from aviation NOx emissions, and the resultant reductions in RF from coupling NOx to aerosols via heterogeneous chemistry. One of the models calculates the changes due to aviation black carbon (BC) and sulphate aerosols and their direct RF, as well as the BC indirect effect on cirrus cloudiness. The surface area density of sulphate aerosols is then passed to the other models to compare the resulting photochemical perturbations on NOx through heterogeneous chemical reactions. The perturbation on O3 and CH4 (via OH) is finally evaluated, considering both short- and long-term O3 responses. Ozone RF is calculated using the monthly averaged output of the three CTMs in two independent radiative transfer codes. According to the models, column ozone and CH4 lifetime changes due to coupled NOx/aerosol emissions are, on average, +0.56 Dobson Units (DU) and -1.1 months, respectively, for atmospheric conditions and aviation emissions representative of the year 2006, with an RF of +16.4 and -10.2 mW/m² for O3 and CH4, respectively. Sulphate aerosol induced changes on ozone column and CH4 lifetime account for -0.028 DU and +0.04 months, respectively, with corresponding RFs of -0.63 and +0.36 mW/m². Soot-cirrus forcing is calculated to be 4.9 mW/m². [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: This study evaluates the capabilities of the carbon cycle and energy balance treatments relative to the effect of aviation CO2 emissions on climate in several existing simplified climate models (SCMs) that are either being used or could be used for evaluating the effects of aviation on climate. Since these models are used in policy-related analyses, it is important that the capabilities of such models represent the state of understanding of the science. We compare the Aviation Environmental Portfolio Management Tool (APMT) Impacts climate model, two models used at the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research-Oslo (CICERO-1 and CICERO-2), the Integrated Science Assessment Model (ISAM) model as described in Jain et al. (1994), the simple Linear Climate response model (LinClim) and the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse-gas Induced Climate Change version 6 (MAGICC6). In this paper we select scenarios to illustrate the behavior of the carbon cycle and energy balance models in these SCMs. This study is not intended to determine the absolute and likely range of the expected climate response in these models but to highlight specific features in model representations of the carbon cycle and energy balance models that need to be carefully considered in studies of aviation effects on climate. These results suggest that carbon cycle models that use linear impulse-response-functions (IRF) in combination with separate equations describing air–sea and air–biosphere exchange of CO2 can account for the dominant nonlinearities in the climate system that would otherwise not have been captured with an IRF alone, and hence, produce a close representation of more complex carbon cycle models. Moreover, results suggest that an energy balance model with a 2-box ocean sub-model and IRF tuned to reproduce the response of coupled Earth system models produces a close representation of the globally-averaged temperature response of more complex energy balance models. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Aviation emits pollutants that affect the climate, including CO 2 and NO x , NO x indirectly so, through the formation of tropospheric ozone and reduction of ambient methane. To improve the fuel performance of engines, combustor temperatures and pressures often increase, increasing NO x emissions. Conversely, combustor modifications to reduce NO x may increase CO 2 . Hence, a technology trade-off exists, which also translates to a trade-off between short-lived climate forcers and a long-lived greenhouse gas, CO 2 . Moreover, the NO x -O 3 -CH 4 system responds in a nonlinear manner, according to both aviation emissions and background NO x . A simple climate model was modified to incorporate nonlinearities parametrized from a complex chemistry model. Case studies showed that for a scenario of a 20% reduction in NO x emissions the consequential CO 2 penalty of 2% actually increased the total radiative forcing (RF). For a 2% fuel penalty, NO x emissions needed to be reduced by >43% to realize an overall benefit. Conversely, to ensure that the fuel penalty for a 20% NO x emission reduction did not increase overall forcing, a 0.5% increase in CO 2 was found to be the "break even" point. The time scales of the climate effects of NO x and CO 2 are quite different, necessitating careful analysis of proposed emissions trade-offs.