the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
HTAP3 Fires: Towards a multi-model, multi-pollutant study of fire impacts
Abstract. Open biomass burning has major impacts globally and regionally on atmospheric composition. Fire emissions include particulate matter, tropospheric ozone precursors, greenhouse gases, as well as persistent organic pollutants, mercury and other metals. Fire frequency, intensity, duration, and location are changing as the climate warms, and modelling these fires and their impacts is becoming more and more critical to inform climate adaptation and mitigation, as well as land management. Indeed, the air pollution from fires can reverse the progress made by emission controls on industry and transportation. At the same time, nearly all aspects of fire modelling – such as emissions, plume injection height, long-range transport, and plume chemistry – are highly uncertain. This paper outlines a multi-model, multi-pollutant, multi-regional study to improve the understanding of the uncertainties and variability in fire atmospheric science, models, and fires’ impacts, in addition to providing quantitative estimates of the air pollution and radiative impacts of biomass burning. Coordinated under the auspices of the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution, the international atmospheric modelling and fire science communities are working towards the common goal of improving global fire modelling and using this multi-model experiment to provide estimates of fire pollution for impact studies. This paper outlines the research needs, opportunities, and options for the fire-focused multi-model experiments and provides guidance for these modelling experiments, outputs, and analysis that are to be pursued over the next 3 to 5 years. It proposes a plan for delivering specific products at key points over this period to meet important milestones relevant to science and policy audiences.
- Preprint
(3817 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(227 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 05 Dec 2024)
-
CEC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-126', Astrid Kerkweg, 06 Sep 2024
reply
Dear authors,
please note, that also for "model experiment description papers" at least a data availability section is applicable. Usually, the information of the input data used for the experiments is put there. However, I see, that you keep it very open on what input (e.g. emissions) could be used.
However, the data availability section should provide the link, where to find the data. Therefore. at least provide some text refering to the respective sections providing information on the input data.
Yours, Astrid Kerkweg (GMD Executive Editor)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-126-CEC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Cynthia Whaley, 09 Oct 2024
reply
Thank you for this guidance. When we submit a revised manuscript, we will include the following information in the Data Availability section, as well as adding the associated data set references for each to the reference section. Note at this time that 2 of the 5 datasets are finalized, and the other 3 will be finalized in the next month or so.
- The anthropogenic emissions files for the historical period are available here: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset_htap_v3 (NOTE: this will be updated shortly for HTAPv3.1 that we actually recommend using).
- The anthropogenic emissions files for the future period are available here: https://zenodo.org/records/10366132
- The biomass burning emissions for the historical period are available here: https://zenodo.org/records/13753452?preview=1&token=eyJhbGciOiJIUzUxMiJ9.eyJpZCI6Ijg5YzQwNDAzLTI4N2MtNDVhYi05MDU3LTk0ODIxYzc3MDgzYyIsImRhdGEiOnt9LCJyYW5kb20iOiJlMWE5YTI1M2NkOTk0ZWM2M2M1ZTE2NjNiMjBkNTBkZSJ9.VE-ixPpsUTPVQHpCbI7ZaqnlrVB963MmQw3Ly3czYozhRqy3wU1DCEjcNxGvqQ-1ImX7uyLSNfBy0d6KFjG5Lg (NOTE: this is a beta version of the NILU-GFASv1.2.1 that may be updated in the near future after community feedback).
- And the biomass burning emissions for the future period are available here: (NOTE: these will be uploaded at Zenodo and link to be provided in the near future).
- The ERA5 reanalysis recommended for meteorology is available here: https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu/cdsapp#!/dataset/reanalysis-era5-single-levels?tab=form
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-126-AC1 - The anthropogenic emissions files for the historical period are available here: https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/dataset_htap_v3 (NOTE: this will be updated shortly for HTAPv3.1 that we actually recommend using).
-
AC1: 'Reply on CEC1', Cynthia Whaley, 09 Oct 2024
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-126', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 Oct 2024
reply
This paper presents a proposed protocol for a new set of HTAP experiments, focused on biomass burning. This paper is overall well written and provides a comprehensive description of the protocol. I have however a number of points and questions that would warrant being clarified.
Line 118: What aspect of uncertainty is being tested here? Most likely just structural uncertainty since initial conditions are not really considered in the protocol
Line 120: Isn’t there a risk that this pushes towards a parameter optimization? Isn’t it more important to be right for the right reasons?
Line 210: Critical in what aspect?
Line 260: I am not sure “congener” is the right term here
Line 284: That is true that isotopic measurements might shed some light in this question of fingerprinting. However, on the modeling side, it seems to me that there might be ways of using tagging methods to isolate specific contributions. It would not work with all tracers, but should work with some, especially within a few days of transport/chemistry from emissions.
Line 334 and Table 1: RF is usually estimated as the change in radiative fluxes with respect to a reference period/composition. What is the reference here? No biomass burning? Are those Instantaneous radiative forcing calculations?
Lines 482-484: the sentence does not quite make sense
Lines 492-497: The use of those scenarios continues to make a comparison with CMIP difficult. And it is noted later in this paper the importance of connection with AerChemMIP2. What is the justification for using those scenarios?
Lines 500-504: what is the rationale for not harmonizing? This seems like a serious oversight that makes the comparison of the two simulations much less meaningful
Line 565: In that section, should there be a discussion of the potential emission of micro-plastics?
Section 4.3.2.: this is just a description of CMIP6. How does that apply to the protocol discussed here?
Figure 3: it seems to me that a region prone to very large fires such as the Mediterranean basin should have a box by itself. What is the rationale for such generic areas (other than the fact that’s the way it’s done for other HTAP projects)?
Line 747: how long are the simulations intended to be?
Figure 4: the color scheme makes it hard to identify the SAOM areas.
Line 758: this is an awkward sentence.
Line 821: the only thing that these experiments will do is to show how sensitive the results are to deposition. Will there be an attempt to use deposition data where available?
Lines 843-845: the use of 4 years is better than a single one, but there is then the covariance of fire and meteorology. One could tease out the separate roles by keeping one constant, in addition of having them both vary.
Line 931: how are the “radiative forcing output for climate impacts” computed? Are those from a double call to the radiation?
Section 5.5.2: will that take into account potential changes in population size and age distribution for the future simulations? Some analysis have shown that this was the largest factor (e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-022-00976-8)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-126-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
551 | 142 | 34 | 727 | 51 | 7 | 6 |
- HTML: 551
- PDF: 142
- XML: 34
- Total: 727
- Supplement: 51
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1