Jerzy BartnickiNorwegian
Meteorological Institute
Uncertainty in the future Uncertainty in the future nitrogen load to the Baltic Sea nitrogen load to the Baltic Sea
due to unknown due to unknown meteorological conditionsmeteorological conditions
BackgroundBackground Eutriphication due to nitrogen load is a serious and
expensive problem for the Baltic Sea
Atmospheric part of nitrogen load is 25-30%
In the frame of agreement between HELCOM and EMEP, atmospheric load of nitrogen is calculated every year based on updated emissions and meteorological data
EMEP Unified model is used for calculation of nitrogen depositions to the Baltic Sea, as well as source receptor matrices
The Source receptor matrix gives the contribution of each of more than 50 emission sources (EMEP countries, ship emissions etc.) to the deposition
What about the future?
Practical Practical problemproblem
Following Gothenburg Protocol and EU NEC Directive, the nitrogen emissions will be reduced in 2010 for most of the sources
How will it affect atmospheric deposition of nitrogen to the Baltic Sea and its sub-regions in 2010?
Which sources will contribute most to the deposition in 2010?
Request from HELCOM to EMEP
What about uncertainty of the prediction? What will be uncertainty due to unknown meteorological conditions?
Simple solutionSimple solution
Compilation of 2010 nitrogen emissions in the model grid system following Gothenburg Protocol and EU NEC Directive (+ 2 additional scenarios)
Runs of EMEP Unified model using meteorological data for: 1996, 1997,1998, 2000
Computation of nitrogen deposition for each of available meteorological year
Computation of source receptor matrices for each of available meteorological year
HELCOM CP’s HELCOM CP’s
DenmarkEstoniaFinlandGermanyLatviaLithuaniaPolandSwedenRussian Federation+Europan Commision
N0N0xx emission sources for 2010 emission sources for 2010
Main nitrogen oxides sources in HELCOM
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
EstoniaLatvia
LithuaniaDenmarkSwedenFinland
Baltic SeaPoland
GermanyRussia
Emissions in kt NO2/year
NHNH33 emission sources for 2010 emission sources for 2010
Main ammonia sources in HELCOM
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
EstoniaLatvia
LithuaniaDenmark
SwedenFinlandPoland
GermanyRussia
Emissions in kt NH3/year
2010 annual emission maps2010 annual emission maps
Ship NOShip NOxx emissions emissions
EMEP EMEP Unified Unified modelmodel
Eulerian, 170 × 133 grids, Δx=50 km
20 vertical layers up to 10 km
Topography and land use included
Meteorological data every 6 hour (300TB – 1 year)
150 chemical reactions also in clouds
Dry deposition processes
Wet deposition with in cloud and below cloud scavenging
1 year simulation – 2 hours execution time
2010 deposition maps2010 deposition maps
N oxidized N reduced
2010 deposition maps2010 deposition maps
N dry N wet
2010 deposition map – total N2010 deposition map – total N
Catchments and sub-basins Catchments and sub-basins
Depositions to sub-basinsDepositions to sub-basins
Total N deposition - GUB
29,724,6
35,3
45,1
33,7
27,8
05
101520253035404550
1996 1997 1998 2000 MEAN 2002
Year
N d
epo
siti
on
[kt
]
Total N deposition - GUF
15,3
11,9
15,4
17,3
15
9,9
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1996 1997 1998 2000 MEAN 2002
Year
N d
ep
osit
ion
[kt]
Depositions to sub-basinsDepositions to sub-basins
Total N deposition - BAP
126,2
104,4
136,9 140,4127
110,3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1996 1997 1998 2000 MEAN 2002
Year
N d
epo
siti
on
[kt
]
Total N deposition - GUR
11
9,810,9
12,211
8,1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1996 1997 1998 2000 MEAN 2002
Year
N d
epo
siti
on
[kt
]
Depositions to sub-basinsDepositions to sub-basinsTotal N deposition - KAT
15,414,4
16,9
19,8
16,617,8
0
5
10
15
20
25
1996 1997 1998 2000 MEAN 2002
Year
N d
epo
siti
on
[kt
]
Total N deposition - BES
18,917,3
21,6 21,719,9
22
0
5
10
15
20
25
1996 1997 1998 2000 MEAN 2002
Year
N d
epo
siti
on
[kt
]
Depositions to the Baltic SeaDepositions to the Baltic Sea
Total N deposition - Baltic Sea
216,6
182,4
237256,5
223,1
195,8
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
1996 1997 1998 2000 MEAN 2002
Year
N d
epo
siti
on
[kt
]
Main contributing sources to Main contributing sources to depositiondeposition
GUB
0
10
20
30
40
FI BAS SE DE PL RU UA GB BY NOS
Contributing sources
Dep
osit
ion
s
GUF
0
5
10
15
20
RU BAS DE PL UA EE FI BY SE GB
Contributing sources
De
po
sit
ion
s
Main contributing sources to Main contributing sources to depositiondeposition
GUR
02468
1012
DE PL BAS UA RU BY LT LV SE GB
Contributing sources
Dep
osit
ion
s
BAP
0
50
100
150
200
250
DE PL BAS SE DK GB UA FR NOS RU
Contributing source
Dep
osit
ion
s
Main contributing sources to Main contributing sources to depositiondeposition
BES
0
20
40
60
80
DE DK GB NL NOS FR PL BAS BE SE
Contributing sources
Dep
osit
ion
s
KAT
0
10
20
30
40
50
DK DE GB NOS BAS FR PL SE NL BE
Contributing sources
Dep
osit
ion
s
Main sources for Main sources for totaltotal nitrogen nitrogen depositiondeposition to the Baltic Sea to the Baltic Sea
BAS
0
100
200
300
400
DE PL BAS DK SE GB RU NOS FR UA
Contributing sources
Dep
osit
ion
s
Uncertainty of the contributionsUncertainty of the contributions
%100minmax
C
CCr
Uncertainty of the contributionsUncertainty of the contributionsto the Baltic Seato the Baltic Sea
Uncertainty reange
40 44
21 2014
4434 34
61
90
0
20
40
60
80
100
DE PL BAS DK SE GB RU NOS FR UA
Contributor
Un
cert
ain
ty r
ang
e [%
]
ConclusionsConclusions More model runs with the same emissions and
different meteorological years necessary to have a better idea about the probability distribution
A longer period than one year is necessary to evaluate the effects of nitrogen emission reductions.
The results of this project had an impact on the plans for the future emission reductions of nitrogen oxides and ammonia in Europe