Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Science of the Total Environment

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/scitotenv

Investigation of black carbon climate effects in the Arctic in winter

and spring
Xintong Chen a,c, Shichang Kang a,b,c,⁎, Junhua Yang a, Zhenming Ji d,e
a
State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Science, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China
b
CAS Center for Excellence in Tibetan Plateau Earth Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
c
University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
d
School of Atmospheric Sciences, Sun Yat-sen University, Zhuhai 519082, China
e
Southern Marine Science and Engineering Guangdong Laboratory, Zhuhai 519000, China

H I G H L I G H T S G R A P H I C A L A B S T R A C T

• The spatial distribution of near-surface

BC concentration in the Arctic in winter
and spring were presented.
• The BC-induced changes in surface radi-
ation, meteorological variables, and at-
mospheric stability were analyzed.
• The downward longwave radiation
played an important role for driving
near-surface temperature in the Arctic
in winter.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Black carbon (BC) exerts a potential influence on climate, especially in the Arctic, where the environment is very
Received 10 June 2020 sensitive to climate change. Therefore, the study of climate effects of BC in this region is particularly important. In
Received in revised form 26 August 2020 this study, numerical simulations were performed using the Weather Research and Forecasting model coupled
Accepted 31 August 2020
with Chemistry (WRF-Chem) in the Arctic in winter and spring for two years to investigate the atmospheric
Available online 2 September 2020
BC causing changes in surface radiation, meteorology, and atmospheric stability. Generally, WRF-Chem well
Editor: Pingqing Fu reproduced the temporal variations of meteorological variables and BC concentration. Numerical simulations
showed that BC concentrations in the Arctic in winter were mostly higher than those in spring, and the BC-
Keywords: induced near-surface temperature changes were also stronger. The effects of BC on near-surface water vapor
Black carbon mixing ratio were consistent with the spatial pattern of near-surface temperature changes. That was probably
WRF-Chem the result of the regional circulation anomaly due to the temperature changes. Additionally, the distributions
Climate effects of near-surface temperature changes and horizontal wind changes also reflected in the distribution of planetary
Arctic boundary layer height. Ultimately, this study revealed that the downward longwave radiation related to cloudi-
ness changes played an important role for driving near-surface temperature in the Arctic in winter. While in
spring, the relatively less changes in near-surface temperature may be the result of the mutual compensation be-
tween the surface longwave and shortwave radiation effects.
© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

⁎ Corresponding author at: State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Science, Northwest Institute of Eco-Environment and Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Lanzhou 730000, China.
E-mail address: shichang.kang@lzb.ac.cn (S. Kang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142145
0048-9697/© 2020 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
2 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145
1. Introduction
Over the past several decades, the Arctic has experienced a rapid
warming at a rate almost twice of the global average, and this phenom-
enon is known as Arctic amplification (Chen et al., 2019; Cohen et al.,
2014; Sand et al., 2016; Shindell and Faluvegi, 2009). Arctic amplifica-
tion has substantial influences on the local environment, such as the sig-
nificant loss of sea ice as well as the melting of glacier and snow cover
(Bokhorst et al., 2016; Kim and Kim, 2020; Szafraniec, 2018; Zheng
et al., 2018), the increase of methane release from permafrost degrada-
tion (Walter Anthony et al., 2016), and the considerable effects on eco-
system carbon budgets and human societies (Ito et al., 2020; Moon
et al., 2019). Furthermore, it can be also closely associated with mid-
latitude weather and climate (Cohen et al., 2014, 2020; Coumou et al.,
2018). Evidence suggests that next to the warming caused by green-
house gases, short-lived climate forcers, such as methane, tropospheric
ozone, and black carbon-containing aerosols, can substantially affect the
Arctic climate (AMAP, 2015; Quinn et al., 2008; Sand et al., 2016; Stjern
et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2014).
Black carbon (BC), emitted from incomplete combustion of fossil
fuels and biomass, is the major light-absorbing component of aerosols
that plays an important role on global and regional climate (Bond
et al., 2013; Jacobson, 2004). The climate effects of BC spans from
aerosol–radiation interaction (direct effect), through influences on
cloud optical properties and lifetime, cloud cover, and precipitation
(indirect effect), to rapid adjustments involving modification of
atmospheric stability and humidity and consequent modification of
clouds (semi-direct effect) (Forkel et al., 2012; Stjern et al., 2017).
Additionally, BC has other forcing mechanism when it deposits on
snow and ice. Such mechanism enhances surface absorption of solar ra-
diation by reducing albedo and thus accelerates snow and ice melting
(Flanner et al., 2007; Kang et al., 2019; Skiles et al., 2018). The Arctic is
very sensitive to climate change due to its highly reflective surface
with widely covered snow and ice, thus BC is especially important for
the Arctic climate.
Both observations and model results showed that BC had a clearly
seasonal variation pattern in the Arctic, with high concentration levels
in winter-spring (it's called Arctic haze) and low levels in summer
(AMAP, 2015; Ikeda et al., 2017; Law and Stohl, 2007; Xu et al., 2017;
Zhu et al., 2020). Many previous studies indicated that BC contributed
to the Arctic warming by absorbing solar radiation in atmosphere and
through snow and ice, and the reduction of BC was considered as the ef-
fective mitigation (Flanner et al., 2007; Jacobson, 2010; Namazi et al.,
2015; Qian et al., 2014; Quinn et al., 2008; Sand et al., 2013; Shindell
et al., 2012). Sand et al. (2016) quantified the Arctic temperature re-
sponse to short-lived climate forcers, and the results showed that BC
in atmosphere and snow led to large surface warming of 0.48
(0.33–0.66) K. Stjern et al. (2019) investigated the Arctic temperature
and precipitation responses to perturbations of individual climate
drivers. They found that BC caused the strongest surface warming in
winter and much stronger upper-level warming in summer, and the
BC response was also stronger in all energy budget processes of precip-
itation changes in the Arctic. Flanner (2013) analyzed how local and
global BC influenced the Arctic climate, and they concluded that Arctic
BC affected the surface temperature highly depended on its vertical lo-
cation and extra-Arctic BC affected the temperature by changing pole-
ward heat flux. While Sand et al. (2013) revealed that the local
emissions were more important for the Arctic climate, with BC emitted
within the Arctic led to an almost five times larger surface temperature
response compared to same amount of BC emitted from mid-latitudes.
Generally, many studies have focused on atmospheric forcing as well
as snow and ice forcing by BC linked with different emission sources,
and temperature response in the Arctic. However, the BC–cloud–radia-
tion interactions and its effects on meteorology as well as atmospheric
stability in different seasons have not been studied extensively in this
region. That forms the main objective of this study.
Aerosol–cloud–radiation interactions and feedbacks cannot be accu-
rately simulated by offline coupled air quality models, which requires
the use of fully coupled online meteorology-chemistry models since
they provide the possibility for feedback modelling (Briant et al.,
2017; Forkel et al., 2015; Forkel et al., 2012; Grell and Baklanov, 2011;
Zhang et al., 2010). Among them, the high-resolution WRF-Chem
model is very typical and widely used in the studies of air quality and
feedback effects (Chen et al., 2020; Ding et al., 2019; Forkel et al.,
2012; Kumar et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2019; Yang et al., 2019; Yang
et al., 2018; Yang et al., 2020). By applying WRF-Chem, Stofferahn and
Boybeyi (2017a, 2017b) analyzed both total and separating aerosol ef-
fects on the Arctic surface temperature during the diurnal cycle. Those
two studies suggested that aerosols caused the surface cooling during
the daytime and warming during the nighttime, among which the indi-
rect effects played a dominated role. Additionally, WRF-Chem was also
applied in the Arctic for several studies involving aerosol concentra-
tions as well as transports, emissions impacts, and cloud properties
(Chen et al., 2020; Eckhardt et al., 2015; Marelle et al., 2015, 2016;
Sotiropoulou et al., 2019). Therefore, this study attempts to explore
the effects of atmospheric BC in the Arctic using WRF-Chem during
Arctic haze, for this period presents high BC loadings. Section 2 intro-
duces the model details, experiment design, and observation data
used. In Section 3, the model performance is evaluated firstly, then
the BC effects on surface radiation, meteorological variables, and at-
mospheric stability are analyzed. Section 4 provides the conclusions.
2. Data and methodology
2.1. WRF-Chem model and configuration
This study used the Weather Research and Forecasting Model
(Skamarock et al., 2005) coupled with Chemistry (Grell et al., 2005)
(WRF-Chem, version 3.6.1) to investigate the total effects of BC
(i.e., the direct, semi-direct, and indirect effects) in the Arctic (Here
the Arctic region is defined as areas north of the Arctic circle (about 67
N°)). WRF-Chem is a mesoscale non-hydrostatic and fully coupled on-
line chemistry model, which has various modules considering complex
physical and chemical processes (Grell et al., 2005). Some of the physi-
cal parameterization options adopted in this study included the Lin
cloud microphysics scheme (Lin et al., 1983), the Grell 3D cumulus
scheme (Grell and Devenyi, 2002), the Goddard longwave and short-
wave radiation schemes (Chou, 1999), the Yonsei University (YSU)
planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme (Hong et al., 2006), and the
Noah land surface scheme. As for the chemical parameterization
options, the second generation Regional Acid Deposition Model
(RADM2) gas phase chemical mechanism and the Modal Aerosol Dy-
namics Model for Europe/Secondary Organic Aerosol Model (MADE/
SORGAM) aerosol module were selected (Ackermann et al., 1998;
Schell et al., 2001; Stockwell et al., 1990). MADE/SORGAM scheme
uses the modal approach with three modes (Aitken, accumulation,
and coarse modes), and major components of aerosols are treated in
the model, including sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, organic matters,
black carbon, sea salt, mineral dust, and water (Zhao et al., 2010).
The simulation was conducted for winter and spring during
2015–2017 (i.e., 1 December 2015 to 31 May 2016 and 1 December
2016 to 31 May 2017) and the results were two-period averages. As
shown in Fig. 1, the domain had a 45 km × 45 km horizontal resolution
centered at 90° N, with 130 grids and 148 grids in south–north direction
and west–east direction respectively. In addition, there were 30 vertical
levels from the ground surface up to 50 hPa. The meteorological bound-
ary and initial conditions were taken from the National Centers for En-
vironmental Prediction (NCEP) final analysis data with a horizontal
resolution of 1° × 1° for every 6 h (https://rda.ucar.edu/datasets/
ds083.2/). The emission data was obtained from the Emissions Database
for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR, ftp://aftp.fsl.noaa.gov/
divisions/taq/global_emissions) and the outputs from the Model for
 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145
Fig. 1. WRF-Chem simulation domain with topography. Red circles indicate the locations
of observation sites chosen for model evaluation in this study.
Ozone and Related Chemical Tracers, version 4 (MOZART-4, https://
www.acom.ucar.edu/wrf-chem/mozart.shtml) were used to improve
the initial chemical conditions.
2.2. Experiment design
Two experiments were designed in this study. In the control ex-
periment (CON), the simulation was conducted using WRF-Chem
model with BC emission. While the sensitive experiment (SEN) was
exactly same as CON except that the BC emission was removed. The
differences between CON and SEN results were considered as the ef-
fects of BC.
2.3. Observations and other data
Herein, the observations were used to evaluate the model perfor-
mance on both meteorology and BC levels. BC concentration simulated
by WRF-Chem was compared with equivalent BC concentration con-
verted from aerosol light absorption coefficient using a mass absorption
efficiency. In-situ observations of aerosol light absorption coefficient at
four Arctic sites were collected from the European Monitoring and Eval-
uation Programme and the World Data Centre for Aerosols database op-
erated by the Norwegian Institute for Air Research (NILU) (EBAS, http://
ebas.nilu.no) (Tørseth et al., 2012; Zhu et al., 2020). These four sites are:
Barrow, Alaska (156.6° W, 71.3° N; 11 m a.s.l.), Summit, Greenland
(38.5° W, 72.6° N; 3238 m a.s.l.), Pallas, Finland (24.1° E, 68.0° N;
565 m a.s.l.), and Alert, Canada (62.3° W, 82.5° N; 210 m a.s.l.). Contin-
uous light absorption parameters were used for the measurements at
Barrow and Summit, and a multiangle absorption photometer was
used at Pallas and a particle soot absorption photometer was used at
Alert. For all sites, the mass absorption efficiency used for conversion
was 10 m2 g−1 (Bond and Bergstrom, 2006; Eckhardt et al., 2015;
Ikeda et al., 2017; Zhu et al., 2020). In addition, BC surface mass concen-
tration from the Modern-Era Retrospective analysis for Research and
Applications, Version 2 (MERRA-2) reanalysis data (https://daac.gsfc.
nasa.gov/) were used to compare with simulated BC in spatial distribu-
tion. Modeled meteorological variables, including 2-m air temperature
3
(T2), 2-m dew point temperature (TD2), sea level pressure (SLP), and
10-m wind speed (WS10) were evaluated using in-situ observations
and the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts
(ECMWF) Interim reanalysis (ERA-Interim) data (https://www.ecmwf.
int/). In-situ observations at three Arctic sites were collected from the
Global Summary of the Day data of the NOAA's National Centers for
Environmental Information (NCEI) (https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/isd/
products). These sites are: Tiksi, Russia (128.9° E, 71.7° N; 9.1 m a.s.l.),
Nord, Greenland (16.7° W, 81.6° N; 36.0 m a.s.l.), and Alert.
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Validation of simulated meteorological variables and BC concentration
In this section, evaluations of meteorological variables and BC con-
centration were conducted for CON experiments. Correlation coefficient
(R) and root mean square error (RMSE) were calculated for T2, TD2, SLP,
WS10, and BC concentration. Since meteorology plays a driving role for
transport pattern in aerosol simulation, the meteorological variables
simulated by WRF-Chem at three Arctic sites were validated using in-
situ observations from NCEI and ERA-Interim reanalysis data firstly
(Fig. 2). Overall, the simulated meteorological variables captured
many of the observed and reanalyzed features. Compared with observa-
tions, the model reproduced the temporal variability of T2 and TD2 at
these sites well, showing increasing trends from winter to spring (T2:
R = 0.97–0.98 and RMSE = 3.17–4.61; TD2: R = 0.97–0.98 and RMSE =
4.06–6.29). Moreover, the simulated T2 and TD2 were also in good
agreement with reanalysis data (T2: R = 0.98–0.99 and RMSE =
2.24–3.44; TD2: R = 0.98–0.99 and RMSE = 2.36–3.17). The SLP of sim-
ulation showed a similar variation trend with observations, with R in
the range of 0.56–0.93 and RMSE in the range of 2.17–4.13. That was
close to the statistics between the simulation and reanalysis data
(R = 0.54–0.94, RMSE = 2.20–4.21). WS10, slightly decreased from
winter to spring, was also captured by the simulation. Compared
with observations (R = 0.72–0.95, RMSE = 1.46–3.89), the simu-
lated WS10 was overestimated at Alert and Nord. While the WS10
of simulation was closer to reanalysis data, with smaller RMSE in
the range of 0.60–2.07. Generally, WRF-Chem performed well in
the simulations of T2, TD2, SLP, and WS10 at three Arctic sites. For
further validating the model's performance on the spatial distribu-
tion patterns of meteorological variables, the results of simulation
and ERA-Interim reanalysis data were compared in Figs. S1-S5. It
can be seen that WRF-Chem also reproduced the spatial distribution
patterns of T2, TD2, SLP, and WS10 in winter and spring well. Com-
pared with reanalysis data, the simulated SLP showed a slight nega-
tive bias in Greenland in winter and a positive bias in the central
areas of the Arctic in spring (Fig. S3). Additionally, the simulated
WS10 was overestimated in the areas of the eastern Eurasia, Green-
land, and Alaska (Fig. S4), but the model well simulated the dynam-
ics of winter and spring (Fig. S5).
BC concentrations from the simulation and observation at Barrow,
Summit, Pallas, and Alert were shown in Fig. 3. WRF-Chem model was
able to reproduce the temporal variability of BC concentrations at these
four Arctic sites accurately (R = 0.70–0.99, RMSE = 31.72–76.29).
From winter to spring, BC concentrations increased firstly and then de-
creased at Barrow, Pallas, and Alert, and increased consistently at Sum-
mit. At Barrow, Summit, and Pallas, WRF-Chem also captured the peak
values. Nevertheless, the model overestimated BC, especially at Barrow
and Alert. This was probably related to the parameter settings of BC
aging and wet scavenging process in the model (Ikeda et al., 2017; Liu
et al., 2011; Marelle et al., 2017). In addition, the conversion of aerosol
light absorption coefficient to equivalent BC concentration using the
mass absorption efficiency had an uncertainty at least a factor of 2
(Eckhardt et al., 2015). The mass absorption efficiency had a large
range with values varying from 5 to 20 m2 g−1, and can be specific to a
site, the instrument and the wavelength used (Bond and Bergstrom,
4 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145

Fig. 2. Comparison of simulated T2, TD2, SLP, and WS10 (red lines) with observations (black lines) and ERA-Interim reanalysis data (blue lines) at Alert, Tiksi, and Nord over the study
period. R and RMSE are correlation coefficient and root mean square error, respectively (black font represents the comparison between the simulation and observation, and blue font
represents the comparison between the simulation and ERA-Interim reanalysis data). Error bars are standard deviations of observations.

2006; Eckhardt et al., 2015). For instance, the mass absorption efficiency
value that Sinha et al. (2017) used at Barrow as low as 8.5 m2 g−1, which
will make the observed BC concentrations higher and closer to the
simulation.
3.2. Spatial distribution of BC concentrations
BC concentrations in the Arctic varied seasonally with the maximum
in winter-spring and the minimum in summer, which was mostly af-
fected by the seasonal changes of transport pathways. Specifically, the
Arctic front extended much further south in winter promoting the
transport of emissions from higher latitudes enter the Arctic (AMAP,
2015; Barrie, 1986; Stohl, 2006). In summer, the retreat of the Arctic
front and enhanced wet scavenging process inhibited the transport
(Garrett et al., 2010; Stohl, 2006). Fig. 4 shows the average near-
surface BC concentrations cover the entire domain in winter and spring,
respectively. For the whole domain, the highest values were in the East
Asia both in winter and spring. In the Arctic, BC presented relatively
higher concentrations in winter compared with spring. In winter, the
major BC hotspots of the Arctic were located in the northern Eurasia
as well as the central areas of the Arctic with concentrations can reach
0.22 μg m−3 (Fig. 4a). In spring, the concentrations in most parts of
the Arctic were below 0.16 μg m−3, and the values over 0.16 μg m−3 oc-
curred in the areas north of 75° N mainly (Fig. 4b). However, compared
with winter, the BC concentrations were higher in some areas in spring,
such as the North Atlantic, the North Pacific, and Greenland. Fig. S5
shows the 10-m wind filed in winter and spring, respectively. In winter,
northward winds prevailing in the northern Eurasia probably played an
important role on the transport of BC from this region to the Arctic
(Fig. S5a). A previous study from Klonecki et al. (2003) also indicated
that the meteorological conditions in winter favored the northward
transport of the pollutants accumulated over the northern Eurasia into
the Arctic, and the reinforced diabatic cooling related to the strong in-
versions led to the transport of pollutants to the lower Arctic tropo-
sphere. In spring, the similar but weakened northward transport also
can be found, and the anticyclone activity as well as southward winds
prevailing in the Arctic Ocean probably contributed to the relatively
higher BC concentrations in the aeras of the North Atlantic, the North
Pacific, and Greenland (Fig. S5b). In addition, the spatial distribution of
BC surface mass concentrations from MERRA-2 was presented in
Fig. S6 for comparison. From Fig. S6, it can be found that the BC concen-
trations in the Arctic didn't show a seasonal variation pattern obviously
and presented extremely smaller values in the areas north of 70° N both
in winter and spring. For instance, the BC concentrations at Tiksi,
Barrow, and Alert in winter from MERRA-2 were all in the range of
0.01–0.04 μg m−3, which were lower at least twice as those from previ-
ous studies (AMAP, 2015; Qi and Wang, 2019).
3.3. BC effects on surface radiation
For quantifying the potential climate effects of various aerosol com-
ponents at a global or regional scale, radiative forcing (RF) can be used
as a standard metric (Hienola et al., 2016). Considering that, the climate
effects of BC on surface radiation in winter and spring were analyzed in
this section. From Fig. 5a, it can be seen that BC caused the increases in
surface downward longwave RF in the areas like the European Arctic,
western Russia Arctic, central Arctic ocean, Barents Sea, Norwegian
Sea, and Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and caused the decreases in
some areas such as Greenland and Alaska in winter. In spring, the larger
increases in surface downward longwave RF were found in most oce-
anic areas of the Arctic (Fig. 5b). The surface downward shortwave RF
changes induced by BC were negligible in winter due to the smaller in-
flux of solar radiation and were relatively larger in spring (Fig. 5c and d).
Previous studies revealed that the surface radiation in the Arctic can be
 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145 5

Fig. 3. Comparison of simulated BC concentrations (red lines) with observations (black lines) at Barrow, Summit, Pallas, and Alert over the study period. R and RMSE are correlation
coefficient and root mean square error, respectively. Error bars are standard deviations of observations.

affected by changes in cloud (Flanner, 2013; Forkel et al., 2012; may be correlated with dynamical response in the sea ice and/or
Stofferahn and Boybeyi, 2017a, 2017b). In winter, the direct solar radia- changes in cloudiness (Sand et al., 2013). The increased cloud water
tive forcing of BC is negligible, and the increases in surface temperature path can result in the increases in surface downward longwave RF,

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of simulated BC concentrations in winter (a) and spring (b).
6 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145
Fig. 5. Average changes in surface downward longwave (a, b) and shortwave RF (c, d) (CON-SEN) in winter and spring.
which had a positive feedback on the Arctic surface temperature
(Flanner, 2013). While in other seasons, the direct effect of BC can
change surface temperature and convection, which can also affect
cloud development and cloud water (semi-direct effect). Forkel et al.
(2012) revealed that the cloudiness changes related to semi-direct ef-
fect dominated the direct effect of aerosols on solar radiation. To better
understand the role of cloud changes on surface, we calculated the cloud
fraction (CF) and cloud water (cloud water mixing ratio plus ice mixing
ratio, QCLOUD+QICE) changes for whole vertical layers in Fig. S7. In
winter, BC increased CF and cloud water in some areas like the northern
Eurasia, central Arctic ocean, and Canadian Arctic Archipelago, and de-
creased them in the Greenland Sea and Alaska as well as its northern
areas. In spring, the obvious increases and decreases can be found in
the areas such as the Greenland Sea and Greenland, respectively. Com-
paring Figs. 5 and S7, it is obvious that the spatial patterns of CF and
cloud water changes were consistent with that of surface downward
longwave RF changes. The increased cloud water can help to increase
surface downward longwave radiation. Moreover, the increased cloud-
iness also trapped more outgoing longwave radiation and emitted it to
the surface. While in spring, the increased cloudiness reduced the
solar radiation reaching the surface, which had a negative contribution
on surface downward shortwave RF and can compensate the longwave
positive feedback.
3.4. BC effects on near-surface temperature and water vapor
Fig. 6 presents the climate effects of BC on T2 in winter and spring,
respectively. As a light-absorbing aerosol, BC absorbs solar radiation
thereby warming atmosphere, and thus affects surface temperature
highly depends on its vertical location. BC in the higher altitudes
absorbed more solar radiation thus causing the surface cooling, while
the lower-altitude BC warmed the surface through direct diabatic
heating (Ban-Weiss et al., 2012; Ding et al., 2019; Flanner, 2013;
Wang et al., 2018). From Fig. 6, it can be seen that the BC-induced T2
changes in winter were stronger compared with spring. The changes
in T2 mainly ranged from −1 to 1 °C in the Arctic in winter. Specifically,
the increases in T2, such as in the areas of the European Arctic, western
Russia Arctic, and Canadian Arctic Archipelago, had the values over
0.2 °C (Fig. 6a). While the decreases were found in the areas of Green-
land, Alaska, and the northern Eurasia with values can reach −1 °C
(Fig. 6a). In spring, most areas showed the decreased T2 and the in-
creases mainly distributed in the central areas of the Arctic (Fig. 6b).
 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145 7

Fig. 6. Average changes in T2 (CON-SEN) in winter (a) and spring (b).

As can be seen, the spatial distribution of T2 changes weren't related to
BC concentrations completely. Comparing Figs. 5 and 6, it can be found
that the climate effects of BC on near-surface temperature were consis-
tent with the spatial pattern of surface downward longwave RF changes
in winter. It suggested that the downward longwave radiation related to
cloudiness changes played an important role for driving near-surface
temperature in the Arctic in winter. In spring, the cloudiness changes
had a negative contribution on surface downward shortwave RF,
which can compensate the longwave positive feedback leading to the
relatively less changes in near-surface temperature. On the other
hand, most areas were fully covered with high concentration sea ice in
the Arctic in winter and spring (Zhang et al., 2016), and the deposition
of BC on sea ice and associated feedbacks are also important for Arctic
surface temperature. During past few decades, the strong warming in
the Arctic led to dramatic melting of snow cover and sea ice, and the
snow and ice albedo feedbacks associated with the melting snow
cover and sea ice can exacerbate the warming (Cohen et al., 2014;
Screen et al., 2012; Serreze and Barry, 2011; Winton, 2006). Future
works should therefore include the climate impacts of the snow cover
and sea ice changes due to BC.
The BC-induced changes in near-surface water vapor mixing ratio
(QVAPOR) and 2-m relative humidity (RH2) are displayed in Figs. 7
and 8, respectively. Fig. 7 shows that the spatial pattern of near-
surface QVAPOR changes was consistent with that of T2 changes both
in winter and spring. It suggested that the BC-induced temperature per-
turbation can affect water vapor content. For the areas with elevated T2,
QVAPOR increased with values in the range of 0.001–0.08 g kg−1 in win-
ter and can over 0.08 g kg−1 in spring (Fig. 7a and b). While for most

Fig. 7. Average changes in near-surface QVAPOR (CON-SEN) in winter (a) and spring (b).
8 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145

Fig. 8. Average changes in RH2 (CON-SEN) in winter (a) and spring (b).

areas with reduced T2, it decreased from −0.001 to −0.1 g kg−1. In win-
ter, the larger decreases in QVAPOR appeared in the areas north of 70° N
(Fig. 7a). On the contrary, the increases appeared in those areas in
spring (Fig. 7b). To investigate the water vapor changes further, the ef-
fects of BC on wind filed and QVAPOR at lower atmosphere (850 hPa) in
winter and spring were displayed in Fig. S8. From Fig. S8, it can be seen
that the strengthened convergence wind can promote the accumulation
of water vapor, leading to the increases in QVAPOR correspondingly.
While the strengthened divergency wind corresponded to the areas
that had reduced QVAPOR. That means the increased near-surface
temperature caused the low-pressure perturbation and consequently
enhanced the convergence wind in this area, while the decreased
near-surface temperature led to the high-pressure perturbation that
strengthened the divergency wind. In addition, Fig. 8 shows that RH2
decreased in most areas of the Arctic Ocean with values can below
−1.6% in winter, and increased of about 0.01–1.3% in the areas north
of 70° N in spring. However, there exerted some differences between
the spatial distribution patterns of T2 and RH2 changes, which implied
that the BC-induced relative humidity changes weren't only affected
by the local temperature, and also depended on the distribution of
moisture.
3.5. BC effects on atmospheric stability
BC can change surface radiation and meteorological variables mean-
ing it can also affect atmospheric stability. Therefore, the changes in
planetary boundary layer height (PBLH) and WS10 were displayed in
Figs. 9 and 10, respectively. In winter, the decreases in PBLH were
observed in most areas of the northern European Arctic, northern
Russia Arctic, and Alaska, with values ranged from about −1 to

Fig. 9. Average changes in PBLH (CON-SEN) in winter (a) and spring (b).
 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145
Fig. 10. Average changes in WS10 (CON-SEN) in winter (a) and spring (b).
−25 m (Fig. 9a). Meanwhile, PBLH increased in most oceanic areas and
the Canadian Arctic (Fig. 9a). In spring, the obvious decreases in PBLH
were found in Greenland while some areas of the northern Eurasia
and Canada presented the increased values (Fig. 9b). Additionally, the
PBLH changes can reflect in the vertical wind changes, and the up-
draft/downdraft was associated with the increased/decreased PBLH
(Fig. S9). Fig. 10 shows that the BC-induced WS10 decreases can bellow
−0.4 m s−1 in winter and ranged from −0.01 to −0.4 m s−1 in spring.
The obvious increases were found in most oceanic areas of the Arctic,
with values can over 0.4 m s−1. Generally, PBLH is primarily determined
by the thermal and dynamic processes. Thermal process is related to the
thermal condition of the ground surface and dynamic process refers to
the wind shear in the vertical direction (Wu et al., 2019). As can be
seen, the spatial pattern of PBLH changes was linked with that of T2
and WS10 changes (Figs. 6, 9, and 10). The reduced T2 and WS10 due
to BC suppressed the vertical turbulent diffusion and decreased PBLH.
While the increases in PBLH were more consistent with the increased
WS10 in spatial distribution. The strong horizontal winds can intensify
the wind shear in the vertical direction facilitating the vertical mixing
(Wu et al., 2019). It suggested that the remarkable increases in PBLH
were probably determined by the stronger horizontal winds of the
CON experiments in the Artic in winter and spring, especially for the
areas north of 70° N with most values of WS10 over 4 m s−1 (Fig. S4a
and b).
4. Conclusions
In this study, numerical simulations were conducted in the Arctic in
winter and spring from 2015 to 2017 using WRF-Chem model to inves-
tigate the climate effects of atmospheric BC on surface radiation, mete-
orology, and atmospheric stability. First of all, the model performance
on meteorological variables and BC concentration was evaluated using
in-situ observations and ERA-Interim reanalysis data. Generally, WRF-
Chem reproduced the temporal variations of meteorological variables
(i.e., T2, TD2, SLP, and WS10) and BC concentration well.
After that, the spatial distribution of near-surface BC concentrations
was investigated in the Arctic in winter and spring. The results showed
that BC concentrations in the Arctic had a seasonal variation pattern,
with most areas presenting higher values in winter than in spring. The
high-concentration BC in winter mainly distributed in the northern Eur-
asia and the central areas of the Arctic. Considering these features, the
9
sensitive experiments were designed to explore the climate effects of
BC in the Arctic. The results showed that the BC-induced changes in
T2 were larger in winter than in spring. In winter, T2 increased in the
areas such as the European Arctic, western Russia Arctic, and Canadian
Arctic Archipelago, and decreased in the areas of Greenland, Alaska,
and the northern Eurasia. In spring, the increases in T2 were mainly
found in the central areas of the Arctic. The BC-induced near-surface
QVAPOR changes were consistent with T2 changes in spatial distribu-
tion, which was probably correlated with the local circulation anomaly
due to the temperature changes. Specifically, the strengthened conver-
gency wind caused by the warming favored the accumulation of water
vapor, while the strengthened divergency wind caused by the cooling
promoted the diffusion. In addition, the changes in near-surface tem-
perature and horizontal wind can also affect the atmospheric stability.
After analyzing the surface downward radiation changes, this study re-
vealed that the downward longwave radiation related to cloudiness
changes played an important role on near-surface temperature in the
Arctic in winter. The increases in near-surface temperature were mostly
the result of the enhanced surface downward longwave RF due to the
increased cloudiness. While in spring, the relatively less changes in
near-surface temperature may be the result of mutual compensation
between the surface longwave and shortwave radiation effects.
The purpose of current study was to explore the responses of mete-
orology and atmospheric stability to BC–cloud–radiation interactions in
different seasons preliminarily. In future works, we will consider the
snow cover and sea ice feedbacks and the separating effects (i.e., the di-
rect, semi-direct, and indirect effects) of BC for a comprehensive under-
standing in the climate effects of BC in the Arctic seasonally. It should,
however, be noted that there were still many limitations impacting
the results, such as the lack of observations for evaluation, the overesti-
mation of BC, and the uncertainties in feedbacks simulation. Therefore,
future works also need to concentrate on how to reduce the uncer-
tainties urgently.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Xintong Chen: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis,
Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing. Shichang Kang:
Conceptualization, Writing - review & editing. Junhua Yang: Conceptu-
alization, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. Zhenming Ji:
Writing - review & editing.
10 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest to
this work.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Chinese Academy of Sciences
(QYZDY-SSW-DQC021, QYZDJ-SSW-DQC039), the National Natural Sci-
ence Foundation of China (41721091, 41630754), and the State Key
Laboratory of Cryospheric Science (SKLCS-ZZ-2020). We are grateful
to the Mesoscale and Microscale Meteorology Laboratory (MMM) of
the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) for making
WRF-Chem model. We would like to acknowledge the NOAA's National
Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) for providing the Global
Summary of the Day data. We want to thank the National Centers for
Environmental Prediction (NECP) and the European Centre for
Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) for providing final analy-
sis data and reanalysis data, respectively. The initial chemical conditions
were improved using the simulations of the Model for Ozone and Re-
lated Chemical Tracers, version 4 (MOZART-4). We thank the NASA
Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information Services Center (GES
DISC) website for providing MERRA-2 data used in this work. Also, we
thank National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Finnish Mete-
orological Institute, Environment Canada, and all air monitoring pro-
grams, such as the Global Atmosphere Watch-the World Data Center
for Aerosols (GAW-WDCA), the NOAA Earth System Research Laborato-
ries (ESRL), the Aerosol, Clouds and Trace Gases Research Infrastructure
(ACTRIS), and the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme
(EMEP) for the in-situ aerosol light absorption observations of EBAS da-
tabase used in this study.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.142145.
References
Ackermann, I.J., Hass, H., Memmesheimer, M., Ebel, A., Binkowski, F.S., Shankar, U., 1998.
Modal aerosol dynamics model for Europe: development and first applications.
Atmos. Environ. 32 (17), 2981–2999.
AMAP, 2015. AMAP assessment 2015: black carbon and ozone as Arctic climate forcers.
Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP) (116 pp).
Ban-Weiss, G.A., Cao, L., Bala, G., Caldeira, K., 2012. Dependence of climate forcing and re-
sponse on the altitude of black carbon aerosols. Clim. Dyn. 38 (5), 897–911.
Barrie, L.A., 1986. Arctic air pollution: an overview of current knowledge. Atmos. Environ.
20 (4), 643–663.
Bokhorst, S., Pedersen, S.H., Brucker, L., Anisimov, O., Bjerke, J.W., Brown, R.D., Ehrich, D.,
Essery, R.L.H., Heilig, A., Ingvander, S., Johansson, C., Johansson, M., Jónsdóttir, I.S.,
Inga, N., Luojus, K., Macelloni, G., Mariash, H., McLennan, D., Rosqvist, G.N., Sato, A.,
Savela, H., Schneebeli, M., Sokolov, A., Sokratov, S.A., Terzago, S., Vikhamar-Schuler,
D., Williamson, S., Qiu, Y., Callaghan, T.V., 2016. Changing Arctic snow cover: a review
of recent developments and assessment of future needs for observations, modelling,
and impacts. Ambio 45 (5), 516–537.
Bond, T.C., Bergstrom, R.W., 2006. Light absorption by carbonaceous particles: an investi-
gative review. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 40 (1), 27–67.
Bond, T.C., Doherty, S.J., Fahey, D.W., Forster, P.M., Berntsen, T., DeAngelo, B.J., Flanner,
M.G., Ghan, S., Kärcher, B., Koch, D., Kinne, S., Kondo, Y., Quinn, P.K., Sarofim, M.C.,
Schultz, M.G., Schulz, M., Venkataraman, C., Zhang, H., Zhang, S., Bellouin, N.,
Guttikunda, S.K., Hopke, P.K., Jacobson, M.Z., Kaiser, J.W., Klimont, Z., Lohmann, U.,
Schwarz, J.P., Shindell, D., Storelvmo, T., Warren, S.G., Zender, C.S., 2013. Bounding
the role of black carbon in the climate system: a scientific assessment. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 118 (11), 5380–5552.
Briant, R., Tuccella, P., Deroubaix, A., Khvorostyanov, D., Menut, L., Mailler, S., Turquety, S.,
2017. Aerosol–radiation interaction modelling using online coupling between the
WRF 3.7.1 meteorological model and the CHIMERE 2016 chemistry-transport
model, through the OASIS3-MCT coupler. Geosci. Model Dev. 10 (2), 927–944.
Chen, J., Kang, S., Meng, X., You, Q., 2019. Assessments of the Arctic amplification and the
changes in the Arctic sea surface. Adv. Clim. Change Res. 10 (4), 193–202.
Chen, X., Kang, S., Yang, J., 2020. Investigation of distribution, transportation, and impact
factors of atmospheric black carbon in the Arctic region based on a regional climate-
chemistry model. Environ. Pollut. 257, 113127.
Chou, M.-D., 1999. A solar radiation parameterization for atmospheric studies. NASA Tech.
Rep. NASA/TM-1999-10460, p. 15.
Cohen, J., Screen, J.A., Furtado, J.C., Barlow, M., Whittleston, D., Coumou, D., Francis, J.,
Dethloff, K., Entekhabi, D., Overland, J., Jones, J., 2014. Recent Arctic amplification
and extreme mid-latitude weather. Nat. Geosci. 7 (9), 627–637.
Cohen, J., Zhang, X., Francis, J., Jung, T., Kwok, R., Overland, J., Ballinger, T.J., Bhatt, U.S.,
Chen, H.W., Coumou, D., Feldstein, S., Gu, H., Handorf, D., Henderson, G., Ionita, M.,
Kretschmer, M., Laliberte, F., Lee, S., Linderholm, H.W., Maslowski, W., Peings, Y.,
Pfeiffer, K., Rigor, I., Semmler, T., Stroeve, J., Taylor, P.C., Vavrus, S., Vihma, T., Wang,
S., Wendisch, M., Wu, Y., Yoon, J., 2020. Divergent consensuses on Arctic amplification
influence on midlatitude severe winter weather. Nat. Clim. Chang. 10 (1), 20–29.
Coumou, D., Di Capua, G., Vavrus, S., Wang, L., Wang, S., 2018. The influence of Arctic am-
plification on mid-latitude summer circulation. Nat. Commun. 9 (1), 2959.
Ding, Q., Sun, J., Huang, X., Ding, A., Zou, J., Yang, X., Fu, C., 2019. Impacts of black carbon
on the formation of advection–radiation fog during a haze pollution episode in east-
ern China. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19 (11), 7759–7774.
Eckhardt, S., Quennehen, B., Olivie, D.J.L., Berntsen, T.K., Cherian, R., Christensen, J.H., Col-
lins, W., Crepinsek, S., Daskalakis, N., Flanner, M., Herber, A., Heyes, C., Hodnebrog, O.,
Huang, L., Kanakidou, M., Klimont, Z., Langner, J., Law, K.S., Lund, M.T., Mahmood, R.,
Massling, A., Myriokefalitakis, S., Nielsen, I.E., Nojgaard, J.K., Quaas, J., Quinn, P.K.,
Raut, J.C., Rumbold, S.T., Schulz, M., Sharma, S., Skeie, R.B., Skov, H., Uttal, T., von
Salzen, K., Stohl, A., 2015. Current model capabilities for simulating black carbon
and sulfate concentrations in the Arctic atmosphere: a multi-model evaluation
using a comprehensive measurement data set. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15 (16),
9413–9433.
Flanner, M.G., 2013. Arctic climate sensitivity to local black carbon. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos.
118 (4), 1840–1851.
Flanner, M.G., Zender, C.S., Randerson, J.T., Rasch, P.J., 2007. Present-day climate forcing
and response from black carbon in snow. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 112 (D11), D11202.
Forkel, R., Werhahn, J., Hansen, A.B., McKeen, S., Peckham, S., Grell, G., Suppan, P., 2012.
Effect of aerosol-radiation feedback on regional air quality – a case study with
WRF/Chem. Atmos. Environ. 53, 202–211.
Forkel, R., Balzarini, A., Baró, R., Bianconi, R., Curci, G., Jiménez-Guerrero, P., Hirtl, M.,
Honzak, L., Lorenz, C., Im, U., Pérez, J.L., Pirovano, G., San José, R., Tuccella, P.,
Werhahn, J., Žabkar, R., 2015. Analysis of the WRF-Chem contributions to AQMEII
phase2 with respect to aerosol radiative feedbacks on meteorology and pollutant dis-
tributions. Atmos. Environ. 115, 630–645.
Garrett, T.J., Zhao, C., Novelli, P.C., 2010. Assessing the relative contributions of transport
efficiency and scavenging to seasonal variability in Arctic aerosol. Tellus B 62 (3),
190–196.
Grell, G., Baklanov, A., 2011. Integrated modeling for forecasting weather and air quality:
a call for fully coupled approaches. Atmos. Environ. 45 (38), 6845–6851.
Grell, G.A., Devenyi, D., 2002. A generalized approach to parameterizing convection com-
bining ensemble and data assimilation techniques. Geophys. Res. Lett. 29 (14) (38-
31-38-34).
Grell, G.A., Peckham, S.E., Schmitz, R., McKeen, S.A., Frost, G., Skamarock, W.C., Eder, B.,
2005. Fully coupled “online” chemistry within the WRF model. Atmos. Environ. 39
(37), 6957–6975.
Hienola, A.I., O'Donnell, D., Pietikäinen, J.P., Svensson, J., Lihavainen, H., Virkkula, A.,
Korhonen, H., Laaksonen, A., 2016. The radiative impact of Nordic anthropogenic
black carbon. Tellus B 68 (1), 27428.
Hong, S.-Y., Noh, Y., Dudhia, J., 2006. A new vertical diffusion package with an explicit
treatment of entrainment processes. Mon. Weather Rev. 134 (9), 2318–2341.
Ikeda, K., Tanimoto, H., Sugita, T., Akiyoshi, H., Kanaya, Y., Zhu, C., Taketani, F., 2017.
Tagged tracer simulations of black carbon in the Arctic: transport, source contribu-
tions, and budget. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17 (17), 10515–10533.
Ito, A., Reyer, C.P.O., Gädeke, A., Ciais, P., Chang, J., Chen, M., François, L., Forrest, M.,
Hickler, T., Ostberg, S., Shi, H., Thiery, W., Tian, H., 2020. Pronounced and unavoidable
impacts of low-end global warming on northern high-latitude land ecosystems. Envi-
ron. Res. Lett. 15 (4), 044006.
Jacobson, M.Z., 2004. Climate response of fossil fuel and biofuel soot, accounting for soot's
feedback to snow and sea ice albedo and emissivity. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 109
(D21), D21201.
Jacobson, M.Z., 2010. Short-term effects of controlling fossil-fuel soot, biofuel soot and
gases, and methane on climate, Arctic ice, and air pollution health. J. Geophys. Res.
Atmos. 115 (D14).
Kang, S., Zhang, Q., Qian, Y., Ji, Z., Li, C., Cong, Z., Zhang, Y., Guo, J., Du, W., Huang, J., You, Q.,
Panday, A.K., Rupakheti, M., Chen, D., Gustafsson, Ö., Thiemens, M.H., Qin, D., 2019.
Linking atmospheric pollution to cryospheric change in the Third Pole region: current
progress and future prospects. Natl. Sci. Rev. 6 (4), 796–809.
Kim, J., Kim, K.-Y., 2020. Characteristics of stratospheric polar vortex fluctuations associ-
ated with sea ice variability in the Arctic winter. Clim. Dyn. 54 (7), 3599–3611.
Klonecki, A., Hess, P., Emmons, L., Smith, L., Orlando, J., Blake, D., 2003. Seasonal changes
in the transport of pollutants into the Arctic troposphere-model study. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 108 (D4), 8367.
Kumar, R., Barth, M.C., Pfister, G.G., Naja, M., Brasseur, G.P., 2014. WRF-Chem simulations
of a typical pre-monsoon dust storm in northern India: influences on aerosol optical
properties and radiation budget. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14 (5), 2431–2446.
Law, K.S., Stohl, A., 2007. Arctic air pollution: origins and impacts. Science 315 (5818),
1537.
Lin, Y.-L., Farley, R.D., Orville, H.D., 1983. Bulk parameterization of the snow field in a
cloud model. J. Clim. Appl. Meteorol. 22 (6), 1065–1092.
Liu, J., Fan, S., Horowitz, L.W., Levy Ii, H., 2011. Evaluation of factors controlling long-range
transport of black carbon to the Arctic. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 116 (D4), D04307.
Marelle, L., Raut, J.C., Thomas, J.L., Law, K.S., Quennehen, B., Ancellet, G., Pelon, J.,
Schwarzenboeck, A., Fast, J.D., 2015. Transport of anthropogenic and biomass burning
 X. Chen et al. / Science of the Total Environment 751 (2021) 142145
aerosols from Europe to the Arctic during spring 2008. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15 (7),
3831–3850.
Marelle, L., Thomas, J.L., Raut, J.C., Law, K.S., Jalkanen, J.P., Johansson, L., Roiger, A., Schlager,
H., Kim, J., Reiter, A., Weinzierl, B., 2016. Air quality and radiative impacts of Arctic
shipping emissions in the summertime in northern Norway: from the local to the re-
gional scale. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 16 (4), 2359–2379.
Marelle, L., Raut, J.C., Law, K.S., Berg, L.K., Fast, J.D., Easter, R.C., Shrivastava, M., Thomas, J.L.,
2017. Improvements to the WRF-Chem 3.5.1 model for quasi-hemispheric simula-
tions of aerosols and ozone in the Arctic. Geosci. Model Dev. 10 (10), 3661–3677.
Moon, T.A., Overeem, I., Druckenmiller, M., Holland, M., Huntington, H., Kling, G.,
Lovecraft, A.L., Miller, G., Scambos, T., Schädel, C., Schuur, E.A.G., Trochim, E., Wiese,
F., Williams, D., Wong, G., 2019. The expanding footprint of rapid Arctic change.
Earth’s Future 7 (3), 212–218.
Namazi, M., von Salzen, K., Cole, J.N.S., 2015. Simulation of black carbon in snow and its
climate impact in the Canadian Global Climate Model. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 15 (18),
10887–10904.
Qi, L., Wang, S., 2019. Sources of black carbon in the atmosphere and in snow in the Arctic.
Sci. Total Environ. 691, 442–454.
Qian, Y., Wang, H.L., Zhang, R.D., Flanner, M.G., Rasch, P.J., 2014. A sensitivity study on
modeling black carbon in snow and its radiative forcing over the Arctic and Northern
China. Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (6), 064001.
Quinn, P.K., Bates, T.S., Baum, E., Doubleday, N., Fiore, A.M., Flanner, M., Fridlind, A.,
Garrett, T.J., Koch, D., Menon, S., Shindell, D., Stohl, A., Warren, S.G., 2008. Short-
lived pollutants in the Arctic: their climate impact and possible mitigation strategies.
Atmos. Chem. Phys. 8 (6), 1723–1735.
Sand, M., Berntsen, T.K., Seland, Ø., Kristjánsson, J.E., 2013. Arctic surface temperature
change to emissions of black carbon within Arctic or midlatitudes. J. Geophys. Res.
Atmos. 118 (14), 7788–7798.
Sand, M., Berntsen, T.K., von Salzen, K., Flanner, M.G., Langner, J., Victor, D.G., 2016. Re-
sponse of Arctic temperature to changes in emissions of short-lived climate forcers.
Nat. Clim. Chang. 6 (3), 286–289.
Schell, B., Ackermann, I.J., Hass, H., Binkowski, F.S., Ebel, A., 2001. Modeling the formation
of secondary organic aerosol within a comprehensive air quality model system.
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 106 (D22), 28275–28293.
Screen, J.A., Deser, C., Simmonds, I., 2012. Local and remote controls on observed Arctic
warming. Geophys. Res. Lett. 39 (10), L10709.
Serreze, M.C., Barry, R.G., 2011. Processes and impacts of Arctic amplification: a research
synthesis. Glob. Planet. Change 77 (1), 85–96.
Shindell, D., Faluvegi, G., 2009. Climate response to regional radiative forcing during the
twentieth century. Nat. Geosci. 2 (4), 294–300.
Shindell, D., Kuylenstierna, J.C.I., Vignati, E., van Dingenen, R., Amann, M., Klimont, Z.,
Anenberg, S.C., Muller, N., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Raes, F., Schwartz, J., Faluvegi, G.,
Pozzoli, L., Kupiainen, K., Höglund-Isaksson, L., Emberson, L., Streets, D., Ramanathan,
V., Hicks, K., Oanh, N.T.K., Milly, G., Williams, M., Demkine, V., Fowler, D., 2012. Simulta-
neously mitigating near-term climate change and improving human health and food se-
curity. Science 335 (6065), 183.
Sinha, P.R., Kondo, Y., Koike, M., Ogren, J.A., Jefferson, A., Barrett, T.E., Sheesley, R.J., Ohata,
S., Moteki, N., Coe, H., Liu, D., Irwin, M., Tunved, P., Quinn, P.K., Zhao, Y., 2017. Evalu-
ation of ground-based black carbon measurements by filter-based photometers at
two Arctic sites. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122 (6), 3544–3572.
Skamarock, W.C., Klemp, J.B., Dudhia, J., Gill, D.O., Barker, D.M., Wang, W., Powers, J.G.,
2005. A Description of the Advanced Research WRF Version 2. NCAR Technical Note
NCAR/TN-468+STR.
Skiles, S.M., Flanner, M., Cook, J.M., Dumont, M., Painter, T.H., 2018. Radiative forcing by
light-absorbing particles in snow. Nat. Clim. Chang. 8 (11), 964–971.
Sotiropoulou, G., Bossioli, E., Tombrou, M., 2019. Modeling extreme warm-air advection in
the Arctic: the role of microphysical treatment of cloud droplet concentration.
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124 (6), 3492–3519.
Stjern, C.W., Samset, B.H., Myhre, G., Forster, P.M., Hodnebrog, Ø., Andrews, T., Boucher, O.,
Faluvegi, G., Iversen, T., Kasoar, M., Kharin, V., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque, J.-F., Olivié, D.,
Richardson, T., Shawki, D., Shindell, D., Smith, C.J., Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., 2017.
Rapid adjustments cause weak surface temperature response to increased black car-
bon concentrations. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 122 (21), 11,462–411,481.
11
Stjern, C.W., Lund, M.T., Samset, B.H., Myhre, G., Forster, P.M., Andrews, T., Boucher, O.,
Faluvegi, G., Fläschner, D., Iversen, T., Kasoar, M., Kharin, V., Kirkevåg, A., Lamarque,
J.-F., Olivié, D., Richardson, T., Sand, M., Shawki, D., Shindell, D., Smith, C.J.,
Takemura, T., Voulgarakis, A., 2019. Arctic amplification response to individual cli-
mate drivers. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 124 (13), 6698–6717.
Stockwell, W.R., Middleton, P., Chang, J.S., Tang, X., 1990. The second generation regional
acid deposition model chemical mechanism for regional air quality modeling.
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 95 (D10), 16343–16367.
Stofferahn, E., Boybeyi, Z., 2017a. Investigation of aerosol effects on the Arctic surface tem-
perature during the diurnal cycle: part 1 – total aerosol effect. Int. J. Climatol. 37 (S1),
761–774.
Stofferahn, E., Boybeyi, Z., 2017b. Investigation of aerosol effects on the Arctic surface
temperature during the diurnal cycle: part 2 – separating aerosol effects. Int.
J. Climatol. 37 (S1), 775–787.
Stohl, A., 2006. Characteristics of atmospheric transport into the Arctic troposphere.
J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 111 (D11), D11306.
Szafraniec, J.E., 2018. Deglaciation rate on southern and western Spitsbergen in the con-
ditions of Arctic amplification. Pol. Polar. Res. 39 (1), 77–98.
Tørseth, K., Aas, W., Breivik, K., Fjæraa, A.M., Fiebig, M., Hjellbrekke, A.G., Lund Myhre, C.,
Solberg, S., Yttri, K.E., 2012. Introduction to the European Monitoring and Evaluation
Programme (EMEP) and observed atmospheric composition change during
1972–2009. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 12 (12), 5447–5481.
Walter Anthony, K., Daanen, R., Anthony, P., Schneider von Deimling, T., Ping, C.-L.,
Chanton, J.P., Grosse, G., 2016. Methane emissions proportional to permafrost carbon
thawed in Arctic lakes since the 1950s. Nat. Geosci. 9 (9), 679–682.
Wang, Z., Huang, X., Ding, A., 2018. Dome effect of black carbon and its key influencing
factors: a one-dimensional modelling study. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 18 (4), 2821–2834.
Winton, M., 2006. Amplified Arctic climate change: what does surface albedo feedback
have to do with it? Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (3), L03701.
Wu, J., Bei, N., Hu, B., Liu, S., Zhou, M., Wang, Q., Li, X., Liu, L., Feng, T., Liu, Z., Wang, Y., Cao,
J., Tie, X., Wang, J., Molina, L.T., Li, G., 2019. Aerosol–radiation feedback deteriorates
the wintertime haze in the North China Plain. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 19 (13),
8703–8719.
Xu, J.-W., Martin, R.V., Morrow, A., Sharma, S., Huang, L., Leaitch, W.R., Burkart, J., Schulz,
H., Zanatta, M., Willis, M.D., Henze, D.K., Lee, C.J., Herber, A.B., Abbatt, J.P.D., 2017.
Source attribution of Arctic black carbon constrained by aircraft and surface measure-
ments. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 17 (19), 11971–11989.
Yang, Q., Bitz, C.M., Doherty, S.J., 2014. Offsetting effects of aerosols on Arctic and global
climate in the late 20th century. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 14 (8), 3969–3975.
Yang, J., Kang, S., Ji, Z., Chen, D., 2018. Modeling the origin of anthropogenic black carbon
and its climatic effect over the Tibetan Plateau and surrounding regions. J. Geophys.
Res. Atmos. 123 (2), 671–692.
Yang, J., Ji, Z., Kang, S., Zhang, Q., Chen, X., Lee, S.-Y., 2019. Spatiotemporal variations of air
pollutants in western China and their relationship to meteorological factors and
emission sources. Environ. Pollut. 254, 112952.
Yang, J., Kang, S., Ji, Z., Yin, X., Tripathee, L., 2020. Investigating air pollutant concentra-
tions, impact factors, and emission control strategies in western China by using a re-
gional climate-chemistry model. Chemosphere 246, 125767.
Zhang, Y., Wen, X.Y., Jang, C.J., 2010. Simulating chemistry-aerosol-cloud-radiation-
climate feedbacks over the continental US using the online-coupled weather research
forecasting model with chemistry (WRF/Chem). Atmos. Environ. 44 (29), 3568–3582.
Zhang, Y., Chen, C., Beardsley, R.C., Gao, G., Qi, J., Lin, H., 2016. Seasonal and interannual
variability of the Arctic sea ice: a comparison between AO-FVCOM and observations.
J. Geophys. Res.-Oceans 121 (11), 8320–8350.
Zhao, C., Liu, X., Leung, L.R., Johnson, B., McFarlane, S.A., Gustafson Jr., W.I., Fast, J.D., Easter,
R., 2010. The spatial distribution of mineral dust and its shortwave radiative forcing
over North Africa: modeling sensitivities to dust emissions and aerosol size treat-
ments. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 10 (18), 8821–8838.
Zheng, W., Pritchard, M.E., Willis, M.J., Tepes, P., Gourmelen, N., Benham, T.J., Dowdeswell,
J.A., 2018. Accelerating glacier mass loss on Franz Josef Land, Russian Arctic. Remote
Sens. Environ. 211, 357–375.
Zhu, C., Kanaya, Y., Takigawa, M., Ikeda, K., Tanimoto, H., Taketani, F., Miyakawa, T.,
Kobayashi, H., Pisso, I., 2020. FLEXPART v10.1 simulation of source contributions to
Arctic black carbon. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 20 (3), 1641–1656.