Advertisement

Environmental Science and Pollution Research

, Volume 25, Issue 15, pp 14844–14855 | Cite as

Impact of dynamical and microphysical schemes on black carbon prediction in a regional climate model over India

  • Rohit Srivastava
  • Sherin Hassan Bran
Research Article
  • 104 Downloads

Abstract

Aerosol concentrations and their properties strongly depend on dynamics of atmosphere. Effects of physical and dynamical parameterizations on meteorology and black carbon (BC) mass in Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled with Chemistry (WRF-CHEM) are investigated over India. Simulations are performed in ten experiments considering two boundary layer, three cumulus parameterization, and five microphysics schemes during winter and monsoon of 2008. Morrison double-moment physical parameterization, Yonsei University boundary layer parameterization with Kain-Fritsch and Grell-Freitas cumulus parameterization schemes are found suitable to simulate meteorology and BC mass over India. BC mass is found to be underestimated in almost all experiments during winter; while, BC mass is overestimated in monsoon over Ahmedabad, Delhi, and Kanpur, which suggests inefficient wet scavenging of BC in monsoon, while lower emission rate may cause differences in winter. The results will be useful in understanding parameterizations and their impact on aerosols.

Keywords

Dynamical parameterization Meteorology Aerosols Black carbon Regional climate model 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Meteorological data for initial and boundary conditions are downloaded from http://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/ds083.2/. The initial and boundary conditions for chemical field, biogenic emissions, biomass burnings, anthropogenic emissions and programs used to process the data sets are obtained from https://www2.acom.ucar.edu/wrf-chem. The Radiosonde data are obtained from University of Wyoming. Authors are grateful to Rajesh Kumar and his team (UCAR, USA) for their support in WRF-Chem installation and simulations. Authors are thankful to anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions.

Funding information

The funding for the study is provided by Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India (SR/S4/AS-107/2012).

Supplementary material

11356_2018_1607_MOESM1_ESM.docx (696 kb)
(DOCX 695 KB)

References

  1. Arakawa A (2004) The cumulus parameterization problem: past, present, and future. J Clim 17(13):2093–2525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chen Y, Zhao C, Zhang Q, Deng ZZ, Huang MY, Ma XC (2009) Aircraft study of mountain chimney effect of Beijing. China J Geophys Res 114(D8),  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD010610
  3. Emmons LK, Walters S, Hess PG, Lamarque JF, Pfister GG, Fillmore D, Granier C, Guenther A, Kinnison D, Laepple T, Orlando J, Tie X, Tyndall G, Wiedinmyer C, Baughcum SL, Kloster S (2010) Description and evaluation of the model for ozone and related chemical tracers, version 4 (MOZART-4). Geosci Model Dev 3(1):43–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fast JD, Gustafson WI, Easter RC, Zaveri RA, Barnard JC, Chapman EG, Grell GA, Peckham SE (2006) Evolution of ozone, particulates, and aerosol direct radiative forcing in the vicinity of houston using a fully coupled meteorology-chemistry-aerosol model. J Geophys Res 111(D21),  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005JD006721
  5. Feng Y, Kotamarthi V, Coulter R, Zhao C, Cadeddu M (2016) Radiative and thermodynamic responses to aerosol extinction profiles during the pre-monsoon month over South Asia. Atmos Chem Phys 16:247–264.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-247-2016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Freitas SR, Longo KM, Chatfield R, Latham D, Silva Dias MAF, Andreae MO, Prins E, Santos J C, Gielow R, Carvalho Jr JA (2007) Including the sub-grid scale plume rise of vegetation fires in low resolution atmospheric transport models. Atmos Chem Phys 7:3385–3398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grell GA, Dévényi D (2002) A generalized approach to parameterizing convection combining ensemble and data assimilation techniques. Geophys Res Letts 29(14, 1693)  https://doi.org/10.1029/2002GL015311
  8. Grell GA, Peckham SE, Schmitz R, McKeen SA, Frost G, Skamarock WC, Eder B (2005) Fully coupled “online” chemistry within the wrf model. Atmos Env 39(37):6957–6975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grell GA, Freitas SR (2014) A scale and aerosol aware stochastic convective parameterization for weather and air quality modeling. Atmos Chem Phys 14:5233–5250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guenther A, Karl T, Harley P, Wiedinmyer C, Palmer PI, Geron C (2006) Estimates of global terrestrial isoprene emissions using MEGAN (model of emissions of gases and aerosols from nature). Atmos Chem Phys 6:3181–3210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holt T, Raman S (1988) A review and comparative evaluation of multilevel boundary layer parameterizations for first-order and turbulent kinetic energy closure schemes. Rev Geophys 26:761–780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hong SY, Noh Y (2006) A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit treatment of entrainment processes. Mon Weather Rev 134:2318–2341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Iacono MJ, Delamere JS, Mlawer EJ, Shephard MW, Clough SA, Collins WD (2008) Radiative forcing by long-lived greenhouse gases: calculations with the AER radiative transfer models. J Geophys Res 113:D13.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD009944 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Janjiċ ZI (1994) The step-mountain eta coordinate model: further developments of the convection, viscous sublayer, and turbulence closure schemes. Mon Weather Rev 122(5):927–945CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jiménez PA, Dudhia J, González-Rouco JF, Navarro J, Montávez JP, García-Bustamante E (2012) A revised scheme for the WRF surface layer formulation. Mon Weather Rev 140:898–918CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kain KF (2004) The Kain–Fritsch convective parameterization: an update. J Appl Meteorol 43:170–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kumar R, Naja M, Pfister GG, Barth MC, Brasseur GP (2012) Simulations over South Asia using the Weather Research and Forecasting model with Chemistry (WRF-Chem): set-up and meteorological evaluation. Geosci Model Dev 5:321–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lim KSS, Hong SY (2010) Development of an effective double-moment cloud microphysics scheme with prognostic cloud condensation nuclei (CCN) for weather and climate models. Mon Weather Rev 138:1587–1612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mellor GL, Yamada T (1982) Development of a turbulence closure model for geophysical fluid problems. Rev Geophys 20:851–875CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Morrison H, Thompson G, Tatarskii V (2009) Impact of cloud microphysics on the development of trailing stratiform precipitation in a simulated squall line: comparison of one- and two-moment schemes. Mon Weather Rev 137:991–1007CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ojha N, Pozzer A, Rauthe-Schöch A, Baker AK, Yoon J, Brenninkmeijer CAM, Lelieveld J (2016) Ozone and carbon monoxide over India during the summer monsoon: regional emissions and transport. Atmos Chem Phys 16:3013–3032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pai DS, Latha S, Rajeevan M, Sreejith O P, Satbhai NS, Mukhopadhyay B (2014) Development of a new high spatial resolution (0.25 × 0.25) long period (1901 - 2010) daily gridded rainfall data set over India and its comparison with existing data sets over the region. Mausam 65:1–18Google Scholar
  23. Petroff A, Mailliat A, Amielh M, Anselmet F (2008) Aerosol dry deposition on vegetative canopies. Part II: A new modelling approach and applications. Atmos Environ 42:3654–3683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pfister GG et al (2011) Characterizing summertime chemical boundary conditions for airmasses entering the US West Coast. Atmos Chem Phys 11:1769–1790.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-11-1769-2011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pruppacher HR, Klett JD, Wang PK (eds) (1997) Microphysics of clouds and precipitation. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  26. Pryor SC, Binkowski FS (2004) An analysis of the time scales associated with aerosol processes during dry deposition. Aerosol Sci Tech 38:1091–1098.  https://doi.org/10.1080/027868290885827 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ram K, Sarin MM, Tripathi S (2010) Inter-comparison of thermal and optical methods for determination of atmospheric black carbon and attenuation coefficient from an urban location in northern India. Atmos Res 97:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ramachandran S, Kedia S (2010) Black carbon aerosols over an urban region: radiative forcing and climate impact. J Geophys Res 115,  https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD013560
  29. Safai P, Kewat S, Praveen P, Rao P, Momin G, Ali K, Devara P (2007) Seasonal variation of black carbon aerosols over a tropical urban city of Pune, India. Atmos Env 41:2699–2709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Singh S, Gupta NC, Soni K, Tanwar RS, Nath S, Arya BC, Gere BS (2011) Variation in aerosol black carbon concentration and its emission estimates at the mega-city Delhi. Int J Remote Sens 32:6749–6764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Skamarock WC, Klemp JB, Dudhia J, Gill DO, Barker DM, Wang W, Powers JG (2008) A description of the advanced research wrf version 2. Technical report, DTIC DocumentGoogle Scholar
  32. Srivastava R (2017) Trends in aerosol optical properties over South Asia. Int J Climatol 37:371–380.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4710 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Srivastava R, Sherin SH (2017) Spatio-temporal variations of black carbon and optical properties in a regional climate model. Int J Climatol 37:1432–1443.  https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4787 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stull RB (1984) Transilient turbulence theory Part I: The concept of eddy-mixing across finite distances. J Atmos Sci 41:3351–3367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stull RB (ed) (1988) An introduction to boundary layer meteorology. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  36. Tewari M, Chen F, Wang W, Dudhia J, LeMone M, Mitchell K, Ek M, Gayno G, Wegiel J, Cuenca R (2004) Implementation and verification of the unified noah land surface model in the WRF modelGoogle Scholar
  37. Textor C et al (2007) The effect of harmonized emissions on aerosol properties in global models - an AeroCom experiment. Atmos Chem Phys 7:4489–4501.  https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-7-4489-2007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thompson G, Field PR, Rasmussen RM, Hall WD (2008) Explicit forecasts of winter precipitation using an improved bulk microphysics scheme. Part II: Implementation of a new snow parameterization. Mon Weather Rev 136:5059–5115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Thompson G, Eidhammer T (2014) A study of aerosol impacts on clouds and precipitation development in a large winter cyclone. J Atmos Sci 71:3636–3658CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Troen I, Mahrt L (1986) A simple model of the atmospheric boundary layer: sensitivity to surface evaporation. Bound-Layer Meteorol 37:129–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Twomey S (1974) Pollution and the planetary albedo. Atmos Environ 8:1251–1256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wesely ML (1989) Parameterization of surface resistances to gaseous dry deposition in regional-scale numerical models. Atmos Env 23(6):1293–1304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wiedinmyer C, Akagi SK, Yokelson RJ, Emmons LK, Al-Saadi JA, Orlando JJ, Soja AJ (2011) The fire inventory from NCAR (FINN): a high resolution global model to estimate the emissions from open burning. Geosci Model Dev 4:625–641CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Centre for Climate and Societal Impacts Research (ICCSIR)Mandvi, KachchhIndia
  2. 2.Atmospheric Research UnitNational Astronomical Research Institute of ThailandChiang MaiThailand

Personalised recommendations