Characterizing the Radiative Effects of Black Carbon Internal Mixing Charles Li Group Meeting Presentation October 1, 2014 Group Meeting 10/1/14 1

1

Characterizing the Radiative Effects of Black Carbon Internal Mixing

Charles Li

Group Meeting Presentation

October 1, 2014

Group Meeting 10/1/14

2

Black Carbon (BC) Direct Radiative

Forcing:

• +0.71 W m-2 (+0.08, +1.27)

(1750-2005) Bond et al. [2013]

• +0.60 W m-2 (+0.2, +1.1)

(1750-2010) IPCC-AR5

Large Uncertainties associated with

direct radiative forcing of BC!

Background

IPCC-AR5


3

Background

Difference of BC AAOD between AERONET observations and AeroCom models. (Koch et al., 2009; Bond et al., 2013)

Absorption Aerosol Optical Depth

(AAOD, τa)

MAC = Mass Absorption Coefficient

nm = mass concentration


4

Background

(Oshima et al., 2012; IPCC-AR5)


5

Background

(Bond et al., 2013)


6

Background

• Internal mixing between black carbon (BC) and other aerosol

species, e.g. sulfate and organic carbon (OC)

Credit to Adachi et al. [2010]


7

Background

Particle-level observations, due to BC internal mixing, MAC

is enhanced by

• 1.8 ~ 2 for secondary organic aerosol (SOA) & BC (Schnaiter et al.,

2005)

• 1.2 ~ 1.6 near large cities (Knox et al., 2009)

• 1.4 in biomass burning plumes (Lack et al., 2012)


8

Research Question

How does black carbon internal mixing affect aerosol

climate forcing?


9

Background

Radiative forcing due to BC internal mixing from model results:


Internal Mixing II:Core Shell

Internal Mixing I:Homogeneous

Radiation

External Mixing

BC

Internal Mixing III:Maxwell-Garnet (MG)Approximation

• +0.51 W m-2 (Jacobson, 2001)

• +0.50 W m-2 (Lesins et al., 2002)

• +0.39 W m-2 (Liao and Seinfeld, 2005)

• +0.17 W m-2

(Chylek et al., 1995)

• +0.27 W m-2 (Jacobson, 2001)

10

Background

• 2 × CO2 :

• 2 × Sulfate :

• 2 × BC (at different altitudes):


(Hansen et al., 2005)

11

Specific Question and Aim I

How does BC internal mixing influence surface forcing

and atmospheric absorption additional to top of the

atmosphere (TOA) radiative forcing?


12

Mie Calculation

Radiative Transfer Module

Atmospheric-Chemistry

Model

Radiative ForcingParticle-level Radiative Properties Aerosol distribution


Background

13

Specific Question and Aim II

Is it possible to provide a more efficient framework to

study BC internal mixing with reduced complexities?


14

Method


Mie Theory Calculation

Comprehensive Radiative Transfer

Model

Particle-level Radiative Properties

Layer-level Radiative Forcing

Simplified Radiative Transfer Model

• Captures major characteristics;• Saves computational cost;• Examines radiative forcing varied with

variables e.g. mixing ratios/states, aerosol species, RH, hygroscopicity.

15

I. DEFINING RADIATIVE FORCING DUE TO INTERNAL MIXING.


16

Method: GFDL Standalone Radiative Transfer Model

Definition:

RF(BC + Sulfate) = RF(All) – RF(no BC & Sulfate)

RF(BC) = RF(All) – RF(no BC)

RF(Sulfate) = RF(All) – RF(no Sulfate)

Standalone Radiative

Transfer Model

Radiative Fluxes (RF)

• Radiative Properties

• Aerosol

distribution• Meteorological

condition


17

Radiative Fluxes: INT vs. EXT

Surface Radiative Flux TOA Radiative Forcing Atmospheric AbsorptionBC+Sulfat

eBC Sulfat

eBC+Sulfate

BC Sulfate

EXT -2.70 -0.94 -1.73 -1.72 +0.20

-1.90 +0.98

INT -3.20 -1.45 -2.22 -1.26 +0.66

-1.44 +1.94

Global mean clear-sky radiative fluxes using aerosol climatology in 1999 :

≅ + ≅ +


18



eBC Sulfat

eBC+Sulfate

BC Sulfate

EXT -2.70 -0.94 -1.73 -1.72 +0.20

-1.90 +0.98

INT -3.20 -1.45 -2.22 -1.26 +0.66

-1.44 +1.94


≠ + ≠ +


RF(BC + Sulfate) = RF(All) – RF(no BC & Sulfate)

RF(BC) = RF(All) – RF(no BC)

RF(Sulfate) = RF(All) – RF(no Sulfate)

19


eBC Sulfat

eBC+Sulfate

BC Sulfate

EXT -2.70 -0.94 -1.73 -1.72 +0.20

-1.90 +0.98

INT -3.20 -1.45 -2.22 -1.26 +0.66

-1.44 +1.94




20



eBC Sulfat

eBC+Sulfate

BC Sulfate

EXT -2.70 -0.94 -1.73 -1.72 +0.20

-1.90 +0.98

INT -3.20 -1.45 -2.22 -1.26 +0.66

-1.44 +1.94



21

Radiative

Fluxes: INT

vs. EXT

Global mean clear-sky radiative fluxes using aerosol climatology in 1999

-0.50 Wm-2

+0.46 Wm-2


22

Nonlinear effect due to internal mixing• Previous studies:

α ≅ 2 (Jacobson, 2001)α ≅ 1.3 (Bond et al., 2011)


23

Nonlinear effect due to internal mixing

TOA

Each color has 8 marks denoting RF based on model year 1860,1890,1910,1930,1950,1970,1990,1999.

Clear-sky


24

Nonlinear effect due to internal mixing• Assumption behind previous studies:

• Actually, in the case of BC and sulfate mixing:nonlinear cross term!


25

II. CHARACTERIZING INTERNAL MIXING ON PARTICLE LEVEL


26

Mie Calculation: BC/Sulfate Mixing

Simulations Difference in Calculation

Ext. Mixing Mix of radiative properties (BC, Sulfate+water) post MIE

Int. Mixing Mix of Refractive Indices (BC, Sulfate+water) before MIE

Homogeneous Mixing

Magnitude of estimations:

External Spherical & Aggregated

< Core/shell & MG

< Homo. Internal

(Lesin et al., 2002; Bond et al., 2006; Jacobson,

2006)


27

Radiative Properties Of The ParticlesMAC MSC


28

Radiative Properties Of The Particles

Effect of internal mixing

at the particle level:

• Slight increase in

extincetion

• Enhanced absorption

• Reduced scattering

• Forward scattering


29

III. CHARACTERIZING INTERNAL MIXING ON LAYER LEVEL


30

Relationship between particle-level and layer-level effects

Two-layer Simplified RTM

Mie Calculation

λ—wavelength, RH—relative humidity, σ—mass ratio


31

Radiative Properties Of The Aerosol Layer

• Absorbance dominates the

difference between layer-

level radiative properties of

INT vs. EXT • MAC is the key particle-

level factor that determines

this difference.


32

Method ： Simplified Radiative Transfer Model

Mie Calculation

Standalone Radiative

Transfer Model

GFDL Climate Model

Two-layer Simplified RTM

Radiative FluxesRadiative Properties

Radiative Forcing

• Aerosol distribution• Meteorological

condition


33

Method: Simplified Radiative Transfer Model

…

Top of Atmosphere

…

…

Surface

Aerosol Layer

Multi-scattering

One Dimensional Two-layer Aerosol Radiative Transfer Model

Radiative properties of the aerosol layer:

t—transmittance

a—absorbance

r—reflectance.

F0—insolation

Ac—cloud fractionTa—transmittance

Rs—surface albedo(Chylek and Wong, 1995)


34

Simplified Radiative Transfer Model• Assumption I: eliminate high-order term• Approximated radiative fluxes:


35

Simplified Radiative Transfer Model• Radiative forcing due to internal mixing:


36

Simplified Radiative Transfer Model• As was shown• Then, effects of internal mixing will be


37

Simplified vs. Comprehensive Model


Clear-sky Clear-sky


38

Simplified vs. Comprehensive Model

Assume Rs falls between 0.3 and 0.4,

• Simplified model well captured the relative magnitude of radiative energy.

• Internal mixing evenly captures extra energy from TOA (positive RF) and surface (negative RF), while retaining them in the atmosphere.


39

Particle-level Absorption Enhancement

In most source regions,

sulfate mass ratio is

between 80% and 98%:


40

Absorption Enhancement


Simplified model:

Comprehensive model:

Particle-level:


41

Radiative Fluxes due to internal mixing

F0 = 342 W m-2Ta = 0.79Rs = 0.45


42

Important Role Of Water


43

Missing role of OCAerosol mass concentration over West Africa in model year 1999


44

IV. THREE-SPECIES INTERNAL MIXING: BC, SULFATE AND OC


45

Three-species internal mixing

Mixing Description

All EXT BC, Sulfate(+water), and OC(+water) are all externally

mixed

BCSUL INT BC and Sulfate(+water) are internally mixed, while

OC(+water) is externally mixed with them.

All INT BC, Sulfate(+water), and OC(+water) are all internally

mixed

σsul—mass ratio of sulfate to BCσoc—mass ratio of OC to BC


46

Three-species internal mixing: MAC


47

Changing OC/BC Mixing Ratio

• When changing OC mixing

ratio towards BC, normalized

RF calculated by BCSUL INT

is a good approximation to All

INT


48

Changing BC/Sulfate Mixing Ratio

• The difference between

BCSUL INT and All INT is

susceptible to changing

Sulfate/BC mixing ratio.


49

Changing BC/Sulfate Mixing Ratio

• Consider the global mean column density of the three species together as about 7 mg m-2. • Then, if we assume σsul = 80%, the bias between All INT and BCSUL INT is compared with the bias between BCSUL INT and All EXT

Unnegligible!


50

Summary of current results• Internal mixing evenly captures extra energy from TOA and surface, while retaining them in the atmosphere.• Enhancement of the absorbing ability (a factor of 2~3) is the dominant factor in determining the difference between INT and EXT.• Effects of internal mixing is strongest at mass mixing ratio of 60% sulfate, and has an important contribution from water.• Internal mixing significantly enhances and alters vertical heating profile, that may result in hydrological response.• Three-species internal mixing has an important contribution, especially for studying the changing sulfate/BC mixing ratio.


51

V. LIMITATIONS


52

From instantaneous radiative forcing to effective radiative

forcing:

• Fast feedbacks—semi-direct effects on clouds

• Missing component in the current framework: vertical heating

profile due to internal mixing

Limitations


53

Possible fast feedbacksVertical heating rates

Forcing:

• Strong atmospheric heating at

750mb and near surface

Possible effects:

• Enhanced convection near

surface

• Prohibited convection beyond

750mb

• Increased low cloud at 800 mb


54

Follow-up work (current project)

• Implement internal mixing between three aerosol species: BC, sulfate and OC in the radiative module of the GFDL climate model.


55

THANK YOU!


Documents

Characterizing the Radiative Effects of Black Carbon Internal Mixing Charles Li Group Meeting Presentation October 1, 2014 Group Meeting 10/1/14 1