On this site, you can learn more about the courses, meet the BriSC team, and see examples of computational research case studies being carried out here in Bristol.
Gosan atmospheric monitoring station on Jeju Island, South Korea. Courtesy of the Korean Meteorological Administration
This finding was based on the examination of trends in CFC-11 in the remote atmosphere, far from potential emissions sources. It showed that someone, somewhere, was emitting CFC-11 again, despite the global production ban that came into force in 2010.
To find who was responsible, we needed to look at measurements closer to potential source regions. The key clue came from monitoring stations in Korea and Japan; when air arrived at these stations from China, elevated concentrations of CFC-11 were seen, and the size of these elevations increased after 2013.
The next step was to determine how much CFC-11 was being emitted. To do this, we needed to use models that simulate the dispersion of gases in the atmosphere. These simulations, such as the UK Met Office NAME model, use three-dimensional estimates of wind fields, produced by meteorological centres, to simulate the advection and turbulent diffusion that gases experience as they are transported through the atmosphere.
UK Met Office NAME model estimates of the “footprint” for a particular time at monitoring sites in Korea and Japan. The footprint is a measure of the contribution that potential emissions sources make to concentration measurements at the sites. It is calculated from three-dimensional wind fields generated as part of weather forecasts. On this day, air masses originated over north-eastern China before heading to the two monitoring stations.
Armed with the observations, and model estimates of atmospheric dispersion, we could work backwards to infer the emissions responsible for the elevated concentrations we observed. We used a range of Bayesian methods to do this, and tested a few different atmospheric models, for good measure. Each approach came back with a similar answer: emissions from eastern China had increased by around 7,000 ± 3,000 tonnes per year after 2013. This was enough to explain about half of the apparent global increase. Because of the sparse global monitoring network, it remains a mystery where the remaining emissions could originate from, or whether errors in the models are responsible for the gap.
Figure showing emissions of CFC-11, inferred from atmospheric observations, for the period 2008 – 2012 (left) and 2014 – 2017 (right). The figure shows the emergence of a “hot-spot” over Shandong and Hebei provinces.
Montzka, S. A., Dutton, G. S., Yu, P., Ray, E., Portmann, R. W., Daniel, J. S., Kuijpers, L., Hall, B. D., Mondeel, D., Siso, C., Nance, J. D., Rigby, M., Manning, A. J., Hu, L., Moore, F., Miller, B. R. and Elkins, J. W.: An unexpected and persistent increase in global emissions of ozone-depleting CFC-11, Nature, 557(7705), 413–417, doi:10.1038/s41586-018-0106-2, 2018.
Rigby, M., Park, S., Saito, T., Western, L. M., Redington, A. L., Fang, X., Henne, S., Manning, A. J., Prinn, R. G., Dutton, G. S., Fraser, P. J., Ganesan, A. L., Hall, B. D., Harth, C. M., Kim, J., Kim, K.-R., Krummel, P. B., Lee, T., Li, S., Liang, Q., Lunt, M. F., Montzka, S. A., Mühle, J., O’Doherty, S., Park, M.-K., Reimann, S., Salameh, P. K., Simmonds, P., Tunnicliffe, R. L., Weiss, R. F., Yokouchi, Y. and Young, D.: Increase in CFC-11 emissions from eastern China based on atmospheric observations, Nature, 569(7757), 546–550, doi:10.1038/s41586-019-1193-4, 2019.