Influence of warm and moist air intrusions on black carbon deposition and snowmelt in the central Arctic
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Angot, Hélène↗
Engineering topics
Pernov, Jakob Boyd
Publications and source records attributed to Pernov, Jakob Boyd.
Characteristics and sources of fluorescent aerosols in the central Arctic Ocean
The Arctic is sensitive to cloud radiative forcing. Due to the limited number of aerosols present throughout much of the year, cloud formation is susceptible to the presence of cloud condensation nuclei and ice nucleating particles (INPs). Primary biological aerosol particles (PBAP) contribute to INPs and can impact cloud phase, lifetime, and radiative properties. We present yearlong observations of hyperfluorescent aerosols (HFA), tracers for PBAP, conducted with a Wideband Integrated Bioaerosol Sensor, New Electronics Option during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition (October 2019–September 2020) in the central Arctic. We investigate the influence of potential anthropogenic and natural sources on the characteristics of the HFA and relate our measurements to INP observations during MOSAiC. Anthropogenic sources influenced HFA during the Arctic haze period. But surprisingly, we also found sporadic “bursts” of HFA with the characteristics of PBAP during this time, albeit with unclear origin. The characteristics of HFA between May and August 2020 and in October 2019 indicate a strong contribution of PBAP to HFA. Notably from May to August, PBAP coincided with the presence of INPs nucleating at elevated temperatures, that is, >–9°C, suggesting that HFA contributed to the “warm INP” concentration. The air mass residence time and area between May and August and in October were dominated by the open ocean and sea ice, pointing toward PBAP sources from within the Arctic Ocean. As the central Arctic changes drastically due to climate warming with expected implications on aerosol–cloud interactions, we recommend targeted observations of PBAP that reveal their nature (e.g., bacteria, diatoms, fungal spores) in the atmosphere and in relevant surface sources, such as the sea ice, snow on sea ice, melt ponds, leads, and open water, to gain further insights into the relevant source processes and how they might change in the future.
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗
Arctic tropospheric ozone: assessment of current knowledge and model performance
As the third most important greenhouse gas (GHG) after carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ), tropospheric ozone (O 3 ) is also an air pollutant causing damage to human health and ecosystems. This study brings together recent research on observations and modeling of tropospheric O 3 in the Arctic, a rapidly warming and sensitive environment. At different locations in the Arctic, the observed surface O 3 seasonal cycles are quite different. Coastal Arctic locations, for example, have a minimum in the springtime due to O 3 depletion events resulting from surface bromine chemistry. In contrast, other Arctic locations have a maximum in the spring. The 12 state-of-the-art models used in this study lack the surface halogen chemistry needed to simulate coastal Arctic surface O 3 depletion in the springtime; however, the multi-model median (MMM) has accurate seasonal cycles at non-coastal Arctic locations. There is a large amount of variability among models, which has been previously reported, and we show that there continues to be no convergence among models or improved accuracy in simulating tropospheric O 3 and its precursor species. The MMM underestimates Arctic surface O 3 by 5% to 15% depending on the location. The vertical distribution of tropospheric O 3 is studied from recent ozonesonde measurements and the models. The models are highly variable, simulating free-tropospheric O 3 within a range of ±50% depending on the model and the altitude. The MMM performs best, within ±8% for most locations and seasons. However, nearly all models overestimate O 3 near the tropopause (~300 hPa or ~8 km), likely due to ongoing issues with underestimating the altitude of the tropopause and excessive downward transport of stratospheric O 3 at high latitudes. For example, the MMM is biased high by about 20% at Eureka. Observed and simulated O 3 precursors (CO, NO x , and reservoir PAN) are evaluated throughout the troposphere. Models underestimate wintertime CO everywhere, likely due to a combination of underestimating CO emissions and possibly overestimating OH. Throughout the vertical profile (compared to aircraft measurements), the MMM underestimates both CO and NO x but overestimates PAN. Perhaps as a result of competing deficiencies, the MMM O 3 matches the observed O 3 reasonably well. Our findings suggest that despite model updates over the last decade, model results are as highly variable as ever and have not increased in accuracy for representing Arctic tropospheric O 3 .
54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗