10
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Societal shifts due to COVID-19 reveal large-scale complexities and feedbacks between atmospheric chemistry and climate change.

      1 , 2 , 2 , 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 11 , 13 , 14 , 6 , 6 , 11 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 12 , 6 , 10 , 18 , 6 , 19 , 16 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 4 , 5 , 23 , 6 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 8 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 6 , 19 , 31 , 6 , 32
      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
      COVID-19, air quality, earth system, greenhouse gases, mitigation

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The COVID-19 global pandemic and associated government lockdowns dramatically altered human activity, providing a window into how changes in individual behavior, enacted en masse, impact atmospheric composition. The resulting reductions in anthropogenic activity represent an unprecedented event that yields a glimpse into a future where emissions to the atmosphere are reduced. Furthermore, the abrupt reduction in emissions during the lockdown periods led to clearly observable changes in atmospheric composition, which provide direct insight into feedbacks between the Earth system and human activity. While air pollutants and greenhouse gases share many common anthropogenic sources, there is a sharp difference in the response of their atmospheric concentrations to COVID-19 emissions changes, due in large part to their different lifetimes. Here, we discuss several key takeaways from modeling and observational studies. First, despite dramatic declines in mobility and associated vehicular emissions, the atmospheric growth rates of greenhouse gases were not slowed, in part due to decreased ocean uptake of CO2 and a likely increase in CH4 lifetime from reduced NO x emissions. Second, the response of O3 to decreased NO x emissions showed significant spatial and temporal variability, due to differing chemical regimes around the world. Finally, the overall response of atmospheric composition to emissions changes is heavily modulated by factors including carbon-cycle feedbacks to CH4 and CO2, background pollutant levels, the timing and location of emissions changes, and climate feedbacks on air quality, such as wildfires and the ozone climate penalty.

          Related collections

          Most cited references70

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Evolution of organic aerosols in the atmosphere.

            Organic aerosol (OA) particles affect climate forcing and human health, but their sources and evolution remain poorly characterized. We present a unifying model framework describing the atmospheric evolution of OA that is constrained by high-time-resolution measurements of its composition, volatility, and oxidation state. OA and OA precursor gases evolve by becoming increasingly oxidized, less volatile, and more hygroscopic, leading to the formation of oxygenated organic aerosol (OOA), with concentrations comparable to those of sulfate aerosol throughout the Northern Hemisphere. Our model framework captures the dynamic aging behavior observed in both the atmosphere and laboratory: It can serve as a basis for improving parameterizations in regional and global models.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found
              Is Open Access

              The Global Methane Budget 2000–2017

              Abstract. Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budget is important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change. Atmospheric emissions and concentrations of CH4 continue to increase, making CH4 the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas in terms of climate forcing, after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relative importance of CH4 compared to CO2 depends on its shorter atmospheric lifetime, stronger warming potential, and variations in atmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are still debated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the atmospheric growth rate arise from the variety of geographically overlapping CH4 sources and from the destruction of CH4 by short-lived hydroxyl radicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established a consortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project to synthesize and stimulate new research aimed at improving and regularly updating the global methane budget. Following Saunois et al. (2016), we present here the second version of the living review paper dedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-down studies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modelling framework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models for estimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories of anthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). For the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated by atmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximum estimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4 yr−1 or ∼ 60 % is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that is emissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 Tg CH4 yr−1 or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is 29 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009), and 24 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than the one reported in the previous budget for 2003–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016). Since 2012, global CH4 emissions have been tracking the warmest scenarios assessed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bottom-up methods suggest almost 30 % larger global emissions (737 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 594–881) than top-down inversion methods. Indeed, bottom-up estimates for natural sources such as natural wetlands, other inland water systems, and geological sources are higher than top-down estimates. The atmospheric constraints on the top-down budget suggest that at least some of these bottom-up emissions are overestimated. The latitudinal distribution of atmospheric observation-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical emissions (∼ 65 % of the global budget, < 30∘ N) compared to mid-latitudes (∼ 30 %, 30–60∘ N) and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90∘ N). The most important source of uncertainty in the methane budget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlands and other inland waters. Some of our global source estimates are smaller than those in previously published budgets (Saunois et al., 2016; Kirschke et al., 2013). In particular wetland emissions are about 35 Tg CH4 yr−1 lower due to improved partition wetlands and other inland waters. Emissions from geological sources and wild animals are also found to be smaller by 7 Tg CH4 yr−1 by 8 Tg CH4 yr−1, respectively. However, the overall discrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates has been reduced by only 5 % compared to Saunois et al. (2016), due to a higher estimate of emissions from inland waters, highlighting the need for more detailed research on emissions factors. Priorities for improving the methane budget include (i) a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soils and inundated areas emitting methane based on a robust classification of different types of emitting habitats; (ii) further development of process-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification of methane observations at local scales (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements) and urban-scale monitoring to constrain bottom-up land surface models, and at regional scales (surface networks and satellites) to constrain atmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and the representation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) development of a 3D variational inversion system using isotopic and/or co-emitted species such as ethane to improve source partitioning. The data presented here can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-CH4-2019 (Saunois et al., 2020) and from the Global Carbon Project.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
                Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
                1091-6490
                0027-8424
                November 16 2021
                : 118
                : 46
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125; jlaugh@caltech.edu jessica.l.neu@jpl.nasa.gov david.schimel@jpl.nasa.gov wennberg@gps.caltech.edu.
                [2 ] Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109; jlaugh@caltech.edu jessica.l.neu@jpl.nasa.gov david.schimel@jpl.nasa.gov wennberg@gps.caltech.edu.
                [3 ] Division of Engineering and Applied Science, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125.
                [4 ] Department of Chemical and Environmental Engineering, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521.
                [5 ] Center for Environmental Research and Technology, Riverside, CA 92507.
                [6 ] Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109.
                [7 ] Goddard Earth Sciences Technology and Research, Universities Space Research Association, Columbia, MD 21046.
                [8 ] Global Modeling and Assimilation Office, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.
                [9 ] Energy Research and Development Division, California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA 95814.
                [10 ] Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309.
                [11 ] Department of Earth and Planetary Science, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.
                [12 ] Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309.
                [13 ] Department of Climate and Space Sciences and Engineering, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
                [14 ] Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.
                [15 ] Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195.
                [16 ] Milken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC 20052.
                [17 ] Modeling and Meteorology Branch, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA 95814.
                [18 ] Department of Chemistry, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309.
                [19 ] Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Environment and Climate Change Canada, Victoria, BC, V8W 2Y2 Canada.
                [20 ] School of Informatics, Computing, and Cyber Systems, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011.
                [21 ] Science and Technology Advancement Division, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA, 91765.
                [22 ] Department of Environmental Sciences, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521.
                [23 ] Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, M5S 1A1 Canada.
                [24 ] Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309.
                [25 ] Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309.
                [26 ] McKelvey School of Engineering, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO 63130.
                [27 ] Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964.
                [28 ] Biospheric Sciences Laboratory, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771.
                [29 ] The Earth Institute, Columbia University, New York, NY 10025.
                [30 ] Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University, Durham, NC 27707.
                [31 ] Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91125.
                [32 ] Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095.
                Article
                2109481118
                10.1073/pnas.2109481118
                8609622
                34753820
                98ebb42d-e6dc-4e72-bd19-c4685ad72907
                Copyright © 2021 the Author(s). Published by PNAS.
                History

                air quality,COVID-19,mitigation,greenhouse gases,earth system

                Comments

                Comment on this article