THE OPTICAL PROPERTIES OF ATMOSPHERE DURING NATURAL FIRE EXPERIMENT IN CENTRAL RUSSIA AND THEIR...
-
Upload
brianne-brayton -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of THE OPTICAL PROPERTIES OF ATMOSPHERE DURING NATURAL FIRE EXPERIMENT IN CENTRAL RUSSIA AND THEIR...
THE OPTICAL PROPERTIES OF ATMOSPHERE DURING NATURAL FIRE EXPERIMENT IN CENTRAL RUSSIA AND
THEIR IMPACT ON UV IRRADIANCE
Nataly Ye. ChubarovaMoscow State University, Geographical Department, Meteorological Observatory, email: [email protected]
Alexei N. RublevIMP, KURCHATOV Center, Moscow,Russia
Allen R. Riebau USDA Forest Service Wildlife, Fisheries, Watershed and Air Research Washington, DC
Meteorological parameters in summer-fall 2002 and climatic values (1960-1990):
june july august septembert_air,2002 17.8 23.4 17.9 12.5t_air_1960-1990 17 18.3 16.7 11.1precipitation,2002 50 16 51 72precipitation,1960-1990 78 91 79 63
30.07.02
Clear sky conditions
Average Aerosol Optical Thickness for 30.07.02: AOT_500=1.6
MOSCOWMoscow river
MO MSU
5.09.02
Average
AOT_500=1.72
CLEAR SKY FIRE SMOKE (1.08.02)
TAGANSKAYA SQUARE, MOSCOW
CLEAR SKY FIRE SMOKE, 4.09.02
(COURTESY OF ROBERT MUSSELMAN)
RED SQUARE, MOSCOW
AEROSOL OPTICAL THICKNESS IN MOSCOW AND MOSCOW SUBURBS (Zvenigorod) FROM CIMEL AND HAND
HELD HASEMETERS. MAY- SEPTEMBER 02.
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
22.22.42.62.8
33.23.43.6
24.0
4.02
27.0
4.02
30.0
4.02
03.0
5.02
06.0
5.02
09.0
5.02
12.0
5.02
15.0
5.02
18.0
5.02
21.0
5.02
24.0
5.02
27.0
5.02
30.0
5.02
02.0
6.02
05.0
6.02
08.0
6.02
11.0
6.02
14.0
6.02
17.0
6.02
20.0
6.02
23.0
6.02
26.0
6.02
29.0
6.02
02.0
7.02
05.0
7.02
08.0
7.02
11.0
7.02
14.0
7.02
17.0
7.02
20.0
7.02
23.0
7.02
26.0
7.02
29.0
7.02
01.0
8.02
04.0
8.02
07.0
8.02
10.0
8.02
13.0
8.02
16.0
8.02
19.0
8.02
22.0
8.02
25.0
8.02
28.0
8.02
31.0
8.02
03.0
9.02
06.0
9.02
09.0
9.02
12.0
9.02
15.0
9.02
18.0
9.02
21.0
9.02
24.0
9.02
27.0
9.02
30.0
9.02
AO
T 5
00
nm
AOT_500, MoscowAOT500, ZVEN HAZEAOT500, MOS HAZEmean AOT
Monthly mean aerosol optical thickness from Cimel in 2002 (in blue) and AOT retrieved from
actinometer following the method Yarkho& Tarasova [1991]
19
72
19
7219
72
20
02
20
02
20
02
_C
ime
l
20
02
_C
ime
l
20
02
_C
ime
l
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
july august september
AO
T_
50
0
AOT_CLIMATE, T&Y[1991] AOT_1972, T&Y[1991]AOT_2002 T&Y[1991] AOT_CIMEL
2002
20
02
Single scattering albedo (SSA) in conditions with forest fires and in typical optical conditions.
Moscow, 2001-2002.
0.75
0.8
0.85
0.9
0.95
1
0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2wavelength
SS
A
fires in boreal forest;Dubovik et al.[2002]
september_01
march_02
april_02
may_02
june_02
july_02
august_02
september_02
from Dubovik et al.,2002
Surface ozone concentration (active ozone monitor 2B Technologies, Inc) and aerosol optical
thickness (CIMEL) changes in summer 2002
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
30.0
4.02
05.0
5.02
10.0
5.02
15.0
5.02
20.0
5.02
25.0
5.02
30.0
5.02
04.0
6.02
09.0
6.02
14.0
6.02
19.0
6.02
24.0
6.02
29.0
6.02
04.0
7.02
09.0
7.02
14.0
7.02
19.0
7.02
24.0
7.02
29.0
7.02
03.0
8.02
08.0
8.02
13.0
8.02
18.0
8.02
23.0
8.02
28.0
8.02
02.0
9.02
07.0
9.02
12.0
9.02
17.0
9.02
22.0
9.02
27.0
9.02
02.1
0.02
07.1
0.02
12.1
0.02
AO
T 5
00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
ozo
ne
, pp
b
AOT_500 MONTHLY_MEAN_AOT MAXIMUM SURFACE OZONE
ozone maximum allowable concentration
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0.29 0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 0.37 0.38 0.39 0.4
wavelength
cros
s se
ctio
ns 1
0^20
cm
2NO2 (Harwood, Jones, 1994)SO2 (Brassington, 1981)HCHO (Cantrell et all,1990)O3 ( Pour, Bass, 1985)
Gas concentration in low troposphere in summer 2002 and absorption coefficients for different gases
Maximum allowable concentration (Russian standard) for
NO2: 80 mg/m3
O3: 160 mg/m3
SO2:
HCHO:
NO2,mg/m3 O3,mg/m3 (MAX) SO2,mg/m3 HCHO,mg/m3mean 73 104 6 15min 15 35 1 1max 251 252 96 91
Concentration of several atmospheric gases in summer 2002.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
30
.05
.02
04
.06
.02
09
.06
.02
14
.06
.02
19
.06
.02
24
.06
.02
29
.06
.02
04
.07
.02
09
.07
.02
14
.07
.02
19
.07
.02
24
.07
.02
29
.07
.02
03
.08
.02
08
.08
.02
13
.08
.02
18
.08
.02
23
.08
.02
28
.08
.02
02
.09
.02
07
.09
.02
12
.09
.02
17
.09
.02
22
.09
.02
27
.09
.02
02
.10
.02
07
.10
.02
12
.10
.02
17
.10
.02
22
.10
.02
27
.10
.02
NO
2, S
O2
, mill
igra
m/m
3
-0.2
-0.15
-0.1
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
HC
HO
, mill
igra
m/m
3
NO2 SO2
HCHO
Spectral dependence of optical thickness for the average concentrations of different
gas species. Summer 2002.
00.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.09
0.29
5
0.3
0.30
5
0.31
0.31
5
0.32
0.32
5
0.33
0.33
5
0.34
0.34
5
0.35
0.35
5
0.36
0.36
5
0.37
0.37
5
0.38
wavelength
O3
and
NO
2 op
tical
th
ickn
ess
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0.003
HC
HO
, S
O2
optic
al
thic
knes
s
OZONE NO2 SO2 HCHO
Solar angle dependence of solar fluxes in different spectral ranges. Clear sky conditions, 1999-2002.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Q_i
r
2000
1999
2001
2002
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Q_P
AR
2000
1999
2001
2002
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Q_u
v380
2000199920012002
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Q_r
ek
2000199920012002
UV380UV380 Q_erythQ_eryth
SISI PARPAR
Loss of solar irradiance in different spectral ranges. Clear sky conditions normalized at ho=30 degrees
and X=300DU.
-80%-70%
-60%-50%
-40%-30%-20%
-10%0%
10%20%
02
.05
.02
07
.05
.02
12
.05
.02
17
.05
.02
22
.05
.02
27
.05
.02
01
.06
.02
06
.06
.02
11.0
6.0
21
6.0
6.0
22
1.0
6.0
22
6.0
6.0
20
1.0
7.0
20
6.0
7.0
211
.07
.02
16
.07
.02
21
.07
.02
26
.07
.02
31
.07
.02
05
.08
.02
10
.08
.02
15
.08
.02
20
.08
.02
25
.08
.02
30
.08
.02
04
.09
.02
09
.09
.02
14
.09
.02
irr
ad
ian
ce
lo
ss
uvb uv380 par ir
MODEL INPUT PARAMETERS:
1. Aerosol characteristics from Cimel sun photometer: AOT at 340-380nm , SSA at 441nm, asymmetry factor at 441nm.
2. NO2, SO2, O3, HCHO gaz concentration for the low 0-1 km layer from ground measurements. For surface ozone we take daily maximum concentration.
TOMS data for total O3.
3.VERTICAL PROFILES:In Troposphere: HCHO - 0.2ppb, NO2 - 1ppb (aircraft measurements), SO2- 0.1 ppb. In Stratosphere: -WCP 112, 1986. Ozone distribution: Subarctic summer model
Effect of different gases on attenuation of Q erythema (dQe = Qe_gaz/ Qe_clear_from_all_gases,%)
observed in 2002 in clear sky conditions. Model simulations.
-45%
-40%
-35%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
AOT_380
dQe
due
to N
O2
-10%-9%-8%-7%-6%-5%-4%-3%-2%-1%0%
dQe
due
to H
CH
O,
O3,
S
O2
NO2 O3 HCHO SO2
Relative difference between Q erythema calculations with gaseous absorption (red
circles) and without it (black circles) and Qer measurements as a function of AOT. ho>25
degrees.The remaining dependence on AOT may be the indicator of
1. Less value of SSA?
2. Problems with non account of forward scattering at large AOT?
3. Larger gas concentration in upper troposphere or existence of other gas ?
-30%-20%-10%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
AOT380
Qer
_cal
c/Q
er_m
eas,
%
with SSA=0.9 o3no2 so2hcho out of gasincluding all gas
Relative difference between Q less 380nm calculations with gaseous absorption (red circles) and without it (black circles) and Q less 380nm measurements as a
function of AOT. ho>25 degrees.
10% of difference is in accordance with the difference in calibration factor CF utilized and CF obtained in Greece in 1999, which was not applied to these data.
NOTE THAT:NOTE THAT:
Brewer UV spectral measurements are lower than TOMS estimations [Fioletov et al., 2002]. Also there were different biases between TOMS and New Zealand (zero!) and European spectral measurements [MkKenzie et al., 2000]
-50%
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5AOT_380
QU
V38
0_C
AL
C/Q
UV
380_
ME
AS Q UV less 380 with SSA=0.9
Q UV less 380 out of gasQ UV less 380 with NO2 account
Effect of diffuse irradiance to aerosol optical thickness underestimation
Close AOT values for NIP and A-50 and their difference from CIMEL sunphotometer MEAN the presence of coarse aerosol particles responsible for scattering in the instrument FOV.
00.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.61.8
22.22.4
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6
АО
Т50
0
AOT_500нм,CIMEL
NIP 5.7 degrees
A-50 10 degrees
DIFFERENCE IN AOT = 0.2-0.7
Single scattering account in the instrument FOV:
w h e r e
b = 0 . 6 f o r C I M E L s u n p h o t o m e t e r b = 2 . 8 f o r E p p l e y p y r h e l i o m e t e r b = 5 f o r A - 8 0 ( R u s s i a n p y r h e l i o m e t e r )
)(
))(
(*expln'
_ Pm
DKKP
m
R
aaerRR
measaer
dxxPKb
RR 1
)cos(
)(2
dxxPKb
aa 1
)co s(
)(2
)exp(1 mD
Aerosol size distribution according to Dubovik&King retrieval method [2000] during clear
conditions (blue lines) and fires (red lines).
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.01 0.1 1 10 100RADII,MKM
dV
/dln
r
SMALL_FIRE_08.07.02 SMALL_FIRE_13.07.02
FIRE-30.07.02 FIRE_31.07.02
FIRE_1.08.02 FIRE_30.08
FIRE_02.09.02 FIRE_05.09.02
FIRE_07.09.02 CLEAR_02.07.02
CLEAR_21.08.02 CLEAR_12.09.02
The effect that may present due to forward scattering into the FOV.
-3 -2 -1 0 1 21E-9
1E-8
1E-7
1E-6
1E-5
1E-4
1E-3
0.01
0.1
1
dN(r
)/d
lg(r
), c
m-3
lg(r)-2 -1 0 1 2
1E-7
1E-6
1E-5
1E-4
1E-3
0.01
0.1
1
Rmax
= 15 m R
max=250 m
n(r)
lg(r)
Aerosol size distribution in Aerosol size distribution in aerosol continental model aerosol continental model ((WCP-112, 1986)WCP-112, 1986)::
Dust aerosol size distribution Dust aerosol size distribution model as a part of continental model as a part of continental model and when is cutted off at model and when is cutted off at 1515m:m:
This particle size, if exists in nature, may be responsible for large forward peak r 4.
Illustration:
The calculated difference between exact AOT and AOT’ measured in CIMEL FOV for continental type of aerosol at different airmass m.
0.000.100.200.300.400.50
0 1 2AOT
AO
T-A
OT
' 340nm,m=2380nm,m=2550nm,m=2340nm,m=1380nm m=1550nm,m=1
Comparison with TOMS retrievals of erythemally
weighted irradiance
JULY
-40%-30%-20%-10%
0%10%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Qer
/Qer
_200
1,%
EPTOMS Zvenigorod suburbs Moscow
AUGUST
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Qer
/Qer
_200
1,%
SEPTEMBER
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Qer
/Qer
_200
1,% 15% of TOMS
overestimation for August and September.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. The most severe natural fire event over Central Russia. AOT is more than 1.5-3 times larger than the monthly mean aerosol optical thickness in summer-fall 2002, reaching AOT_500>3.2. Flux validation approved that smoke aerosol has very slight absorption ( SSA0.95 from CIMEL retrievals). 3. In UV spectrum we should take into account the effects of gaseous absorption (mainly by NO2) both in clear sky and fire conditions. But sometimes other gases (O3, SO2) also play significant role. 4. NO2 may be responsible for the difference in comparisons of ground UV measurements with TOMS estimates especially in the polluted regions.5. It may be the effect of forward scattering into the CIMEL FOV due to the existence of large aerosol particles that is especially significant at high solar zenith angles. If they really present in nature? Need further studies..
Acknowledgements:We would like to thank:
1. AERONET team (Brent Holben, Alexander Smirnov, Oleg Dubovik, Ilya Slutsker, David Giles, etc.) for help in maintaining of measurements and providing a lot of consultations.
2. Moscow Ecological Monitoring Office for providing the data on concentration of some gas species and «PLANETA» Scientific Center for providing satellite images of fires around Moscow .
3. Dr. Wei Min Hao from USDA Forest Service for providing the Hasemeters for aerosol studies at Moscow suburbs.
4. NOAA for producing the backward trajectories over Moscow.
5. The staff of Meteorological observatory of MSU and, personally, V. Rozental’, N. Uliumdzhieva, A. Yurova, Ye. Stolyarova for technical help with instruments maintanence.
This work was done partially under the support of the USDA Forest Service in the frame of the project ‘‘Solar Radiation and Weather Variability Influences on Russian Sub-Boreal Forest Phenology.’’