Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Are decadal anthropogenic emission reductions in Europe consistent with surface ozone observations?

  • Robert Vautard
  • , Sophie Szopa
  • , Matthias Beekmann
  • , Laurent Menut
  • , Didier A. Hauglustaine
  • , Laurence Rouil
  • , Michiel Roemer
  • Université Versailles-Saint Quentin
  • Université Paris XII
  • Lab. Interuniversitaire Systemes
  • INERIS Institut National de l'Environnement Industriel et des Risques
  • Institut National de l'Environnement Industriel et des Risques
  • Netherlands Organisation for Applied Scientific Research (TNO)

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The consistency between pollutant emission reductions in Europe during the 1990-2002 period and ozone observations is quantitatively verified by 13-year long simulations over the whole period using the regional chemistry-transport model and the EMEP emission inventory. A statistically significant decadal tendency of 0.65 ppb/year is found in the difference between simulated and observed summer 90th percentiles of ozone daily maxima when model emissions are kept constant from year to year. By contrast the use of yearly dependent emissions does not yield a statistically significant percentile difference tendency. The regional structure of the 90th percentile differences shows that emissions may have decreased with a higher rate than assumed in the U.K. and at a lower rate in central Europe. The observed 10th percentiles are also compatible with the assumed emission reductions in Europe during 1990-2002, but are of lesser agreement with simulations using a uniform trend in the baseline ozone.

Original languageEnglish
Article numberL13810
JournalGeophysical Research Letters
Volume33
Issue number13
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Jul 2006

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Are decadal anthropogenic emission reductions in Europe consistent with surface ozone observations?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this