Radiative forcing and climate metrics for ozone precursor emissions: the impact of multi-model averaging

Multi-model ensembles are frequently used to assess understanding of the response of ozone and methane lifetime to changes in emissions of ozone precursors such as NOx, VOCs (volatile organic compounds) and CO. When these ozone changes are used to calculate radiative forcing (RF) (and climate metrics such as the global warming potential (GWP) and global temperature-change potential (GTP)) there is a methodological choice, determined partly by the available computing resources, as to whether the mean ozone (and methane) concentration changes are input to the radiation code, or whether each model's ozone and methane changes are used as input, with the average RF computed from the individual model RFs. We use data from the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollution source–receptor global chemical transport model ensemble to assess the impact of this choice for emission changes in four regions (East Asia, Europe, North America and South Asia). We conclude that using the multi-model mean ozone and methane responses is accurate for calculating the mean RF, with differences up to 0.6% for CO, 0.7% for VOCs and 2% for NOx. Differences of up to 60% for NOx 7% for VOCs and 3% for CO are introduced into the 20 year GWP. The differences for the 20 year GTP are smaller than for the GWP for NOx, and similar for the other species. However, estimates of the standard deviation calculated from the ensemble-mean input fields (where the standard deviation at each point on the model grid is added to or subtracted from the mean field) are almost always substantially larger in RF, GWP and GTP metrics than the true standard deviation, and can be larger than the model range for short-lived ozone RF, and for the 20 and 100 year GWP and 100 year GTP. The order of averaging has most impact on the metrics for NOx, as the net values for these quantities is the residual of the sum of terms of opposing signs. For example, the standard deviation for the 20 year GWP is 2–3 times larger using the ensemble-mean fields than using the individual models to calculate the RF. The source of this effect is largely due to the construction of the input ozone fields, which overestimate the true ensemble spread. Hence, while the average of multi-model fields are normally appropriate for calculating mean RF, GWP and GTP, they are not a reliable method for calculating the uncertainty in these fields, and in general overestimate the uncertainty.

Metrics for linking emissions of gases and aerosols to global precipitation changes

Recent advances in understanding have made it possible to relate global precipitation changes directly to emissions of particular gases and aerosols that influence climate. Using these advances, new indices are developed here called the Global Precipitation-change Potential for pulse (GPP_P) and sustained (GPP_S) emissions, which measure the precipitation change per unit mass of emissions. The GPP can be used as a metric to compare the effects of different emissions. This is akin to the global warming potential (GWP) and the global temperature-change potential (GTP) which are used to place emissions on a common scale. Hence the GPP provides an additional perspective of the relative or absolute effects of emissions. It is however recognised that precipitation changes are predicted to be highly variable in size and sign between different regions and this limits the usefulness of a purely global metric. The GPP_P and GPP_S formulation consists of two terms, one dependent on the surface temperature change and the other dependent on the atmospheric component of the radiative forcing. For some forcing agents, and notably for CO2, these two terms oppose each other – as the forcing and temperature perturbations have different timescales, even the sign of the absolute GPP_P and GPP_S varies with time, and the opposing terms can make values sensitive to uncertainties in input parameters. This makes the choice of CO2 as a reference gas problematic, especially for the GPP_S at time horizons less than about 60 years. In addition, few studies have presented results for the surface/atmosphere partitioning of different forcings, leading to more uncertainty in quantifying the GPP than the GWP or GTP. Values of the GPP_P and GPP_S for five long- and short-lived forcing agents (CO2, CH4, N2O, sulphate and black carbon – BC) are presented, using illustrative values of required parameters. The resulting precipitation changes are given as the change at a specific time horizon (and hence they are end-point metrics) but it is noted that the GPPS can also be interpreted as the time-integrated effect of a pulse emission. Using CO2 as a references gas, the GPP_P and GPP_S for the non-CO2 species are larger than the corresponding GTP values. For BC emissions, the atmospheric forcing is sufficiently strong that the GPP_S is opposite in sign to the GTP_S. The sensitivity of these values to a number of input parameters is explored. The GPP can also be used to evaluate the contribution of different emissions to precipitation change during or after a period of emissions. As an illustration, the precipitation changes resulting from emissions in 2008 (using the GPP_P) and emissions sustained at 2008 levels (using the GPP_S) are presented. These indicate that for periods of 20 years (after the 2008 emissions) and 50 years (for sustained emissions at 2008 levels) methane is the dominant driver of positive precipitation changes due to those emissions. For sustained emissions, the sum of the effect of the five species included here does not become positive until after 50 years, by which time the global surface temperature increase exceeds 1 K.