Upload
gabby
View
44
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Contribution from MSC-W to the review of the Gothenburg protocol – Reports 2006. TFIAM, Rome, 16-18th May, 2006. H. Fagerli & L. Tarrason. Review of the Gothenburg Protocol Draft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1. Emissions 1990, 2000, 2004 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Contribution from MSC-W to the review of the Gothenburg protocol – Reports 2006
TFIAM, Rome, 16-18th May, 2006
H. Fagerli & L. Tarrason
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1
• Emissions 1990, 2000, 2004 • Projections for 2010 - Emissions ceilings, CIAM (need
clarification)• Acidification and eutrophication • Photo-oxidants• Particulate matter• WILL TARGETS BE MET IN 2010 ? Recommendations from
available scientific knowledge
PROGRESS TOWARDS ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVE OF THE PROTOCOL
Analysis for 1990, 2000, 2004 and Projections to 2010
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1
CHAPTER 1 : EMISSION TRENDS FROM 1990, 2000, 2004
• What are the main trends for emission since 1990?
• What are the sectors with the largest emission reductions ? What sectors with less/no reductions, e.g. ship emissions, off-road traffic
• Are there significant differences in the trends between countries ?
• Are there significant differences in the trends between emission expert estimates and the officially reported trends ?
• What are the main uncertainties in the emission estimates of the gaseous components? SOx, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO?
Authors: MSC-W, CCC, CIAM
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
How far are we from reaching the Gothenburg emission ceilings?
Green: Target reached already
Red: Target not reached* Countries that have
ratified the Gothenburg protocol
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1
CHAPTER 1 : EMISSION TRENDS FROM 1990, 2000, 2004
• What are the main trends for emission since 1990?
• What are the sectors with the largest emission reductions ? What sectors with less/no reductions, e.g. ship emissions, off-road traffic
• Are there significant differences in the trends between countries ?
• Are there significant differences in the trends between emission expert estimates and the officially reported trends ?
• What are the main uncertainties in the emission estimates of the gaseous components? SOx, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO?
Authors: MSC-W, CCC, CIAM
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Relative importance of ship emissions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2010
IIASA
2020
IIASA
% s
hip
s e
mis
sio
ns
to
lan
d
ba
se
d e
mis
sio
ns
SO2
NO2
Contribution of Ox S from shipping to deposition of S
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1
CHAPTER 1 : EMISSION TRENDS FROM 1990, 2000, 2004
• What are the main trends for emission since 1990?
• What are the sectors with the largest emission reductions ? What sectors with less/no reductions, e.g. ship emissions, off-road traffic
• Are there significant differences in the trends between countries ?
• Are there significant differences in the trends between emission expert estimates and the officially reported trends ?
• What are the main uncertainties in the emission estimates of the gaseous components? Sox, NOx, NH3, VOC, CO?
Authors: MSC-W, CCC, CIAM
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
CHAPTER 3 : ACIDIFICATION AND
EUTROPHICATION • Trends in concentrations and depositions of N and S since 1990?
– Assessment report, earlier reports, publications• Analysis of deposition trends per country for 1990, 2000, 2004 and
2010 (maps and histograms)• How large been the main improvements in acidification and
eutrophication since 1990 ? • Analysis of exceedances to critical loads per country for 1990, 2000,
2004 and 2010 (maps and histograms)• Evaluation of exceedances to critical loads by ecosystem (1990, 2000,
2004 and 2010)• Will we meet the goals of the Gothenburg protocol by 2010 ?• The new atmospheric model leads to more deposition on forests and
natural areas than thought during the preparation of the protocol. Analysis of differences in the projections for 2010 due to inclusion of model calculations with the ecosystem specific approach
Authors: MSC-W, CCC, CCE
Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Acidification and eutrophication
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
New estimates of risk for ecosystem damage are about a factor of 3 higher for eutrophication (30-50% higher for acidification) than estimates made at the time of the negotiations under the Gothenburg protocol and the NEC Directive
• This increase in risk calculations is the result of a series of individual improvements and updates:
• Emission data updates• Available critical load data• Use of chemical transport model for deposition estimate• Use of land-cover specific depositions instead of averaged grid
depositions
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Meteorologisk Institutt met.no
Influence of different factors for changes in risk estimates
GB estimates Updated emissions and CL 50km CL
Eulerian grid average dep. Eulerian ecosys. Dep.
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
2006 COMMON REPORTS CCC & MSC-W
EMEP report 1/2006 Review of the Gothenburg Protocol
EMEP report 4/2006 Status of current understanding of PM
Note on hemispheric transport
• Evaluation of the hemispheric EMEP model • Comparison with UiOs CTM2 model• First calculations of intercontinental SR
MSC-W notes • Note 1/2006 Emission review for 2004• Note 2/2006 Country reports for 2004
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
73.034.777.735.1ecosystem specific dep.
59.228.564.929.2grid average deposition
Unified Model & 2004 CLs
49.023.156.024.52004 critical loads
54.424.660.726.01998 critical loads
Lagrangian model
EU25EuropeEU25Europe
20102000
% eco-area with CL-nutrient nitrogen exceeded in 2000 and 2010
Proposed approach: Percentage recovery
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
CHAPTER 4 : PHOTO-OXIDANTS• What are the trends for ozone concentrations since 1990?
• Analysis of ozone impact on ecosystems for 1990, 2000, 2004 and 2010 (maps and histograms) AOT40 versus flux based approach
• Analysis of differences in the projections for 2010 due to inclusion of model calculations of flux approaches
• Will we meet the objectives of the Gothenburg protocol by 2010 ?
• Ozone impacts on health for 1990, 200, 2004 and 2010. Will we meet the objectives of the Gothenburg protocol by 2010 ? AOT60 versus SOMO35
Authors: MSC-W, CCC
Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Changes in the ozone indicators
Rcl AOT40 forest,2000 Rcl AFst1.6 forest,2000
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1CHAPTER 5: PARTICULATE MATTER (short
summary of PM report)• How large is the PM transboundary contribution ?• What are the main sources of PM transboundary
contribution – per sector?• Should we include also variability analysis /trend study
for 2000, 2004 and 2010?• To what extent should we use AIRBASE and urban PM
sites in this analysis ?
Authors: MSC-W, CCC
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
PM
UNCERTAINTIES
• Sensitivity analysis on the influence of natural sources of PM (source by source)• Sensitivity analysis on PM primary emissions
• Where are the main uncertainties on primary sources of PM ? Data on emissions & concentrations of PM are more uncertain than for other pollutants under the Protocol. For some sectors (eg traffic) emission data are more certain then for other sectors (eg residential wood burning). • Sensitivity analysis on emissions and spatial distribution of residential wood burning.
• Sensitivity analysis on secondary organic aerosols. •What are the uncertainties & inconsistencies in PM-monitoring data?
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Review of the Gothenburg ProtocolDraft outline of the 2006 EMEP Report 1
CHAPTER 6: WILL TARGETS BE MET IN 2010 ? Recommendations from available scientific knowledge
• Will emission ceilings be met?• Will the objectives with respect to
exceedances be met, for– CL of acidity– CL of nutrient nitrogen– Critical levels for O3
• What are the main uncertainties of the assessment?
Is available science robust enough to support a revision of the Gothenburg protocol?
Norwegian Meteorological Institute met.no
Questions to TFIAM
• Is the proposed outline what is expected from the EMEP reports?
• Does TFIAM agree with the proposed way of measuring compliance with objectives in the Gothenburg protocol?
(% change in indicators)• Are there any missing questions that
need to be addressed by MSC-W?