Implementation of a satellite-based tool for the quantification of CH4 emissions over Europe (AUMIA v1.0) – Part 1: forward modelling evaluation against near-surface and satellite data
-
Published:2023-11-10
Issue:21
Volume:16
Page:6413-6431
-
ISSN:1991-9603
-
Container-title:Geoscientific Model Development
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Geosci. Model Dev.
Author:
Vara-Vela Angel Liduvino, Karoff Christoffer, Rojas Benavente NoeliaORCID, Nascimento Janaina P.
Abstract
Abstract. Methane is the second-most important greenhouse gas after carbon dioxide and accounts for around 10 % of total European Union greenhouse gas emissions. Given that the atmospheric methane budget over a region depends on its terrestrial and aquatic methane sources, inverse modelling techniques appear as powerful tools for identifying critical areas that can later be submitted to emission mitigation strategies. In this regard, an inverse modelling system of methane emissions for Europe is being implemented based on the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model: the Aarhus University Methane Inversion Algorithm (AUMIA) v1.0. The forward modelling component of AUMIA consists of the WRF model coupled to a multipurpose global database of methane anthropogenic emissions. To assure transport consistency during the inversion process, the backward modelling component will be based on the WRF model coupled to a Lagrangian particle dispersion module. A description of the modelling tools, input data sets, and 1-year forward modelling evaluation from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019 is provided in this paper. The a posteriori methane emission estimates, including a more focused inverse modelling for Denmark, will be provided in a second paper. A good general agreement is found between the modelling results and observations based on the TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) onboard the Sentinel-5 Precursor satellite. Model–observation discrepancies for the summer peak season are in line with previous studies conducted over urban areas in central Europe, with relative differences between simulated concentrations and observational data in this study ranging from 1 % to 2 %. Domain-wide correlation coefficients and root-mean-square errors for summer months ranged from 0.4 to 0.5 and from 27 to 30 ppb, respectively. On the other hand, model–observation discrepancies for winter months show a significant overestimation of anthropogenic emissions over the study region, with relative differences ranging from 2 % to 3 %. Domain-wide correlation coefficients and root-mean-square errors in this case ranged from 0.1 to 0.4 and from 33 to 50 ppb, respectively, indicating that a more refined inverse analysis assessment will be required for this season. According to modelling results, the methane enhancement above the background concentrations came almost entirely from anthropogenic sources; however, these sources contributed with only up to 2 % to the methane total-column concentration. Contributions from natural sources (wetlands and termites) and biomass burning were not relevant during the study period. The results found in this study contribute with a new model evaluation of methane concentrations over Europe and demonstrate a huge potential for methane inverse modelling using improved TROPOMI products in large-scale applications.
Publisher
Copernicus GmbH
Reference73 articles.
1. Ahmadov, R., Gerbig, C., Kretschmer, R., Koerner, S., Neininger, B., Dolmann, A. J., and Sarat, C.: Mesoscale covariance of transport and CO2 fluxes: Evidence from observations and simulations using the WRF-VPRM coupled atmosphere-biosphere model, J. Geophys. Res., 112, D22107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007JD008552, 2007. 2. Al-Saadi, J., Soja, A. B., Pierce, R. B., Szykman, J. J., Wiedinmyer, C., Emmons, L. K., Kondragunta, S., Zhang, X., Kittaka, C., Schaack, T., and Bowman, K. W.: Intercomparison of near-real-time biomass burning emissions estimates constrained by satellite fire data, J. Appl. Remote Sens., 2, 021504, https://doi.org/10.1117/1.2948785, 2008. 3. Atmospheric Chemistry Observations and Modeling Lab of NCAR: WRF-Chem Tools for the Community, https://www2.acom.ucar.edu/wrf-chem/wrf-chem-tools-community (last access: 28 April 2022), 2022. 4. Basu, S., Lan, X., Dlugokencky, E., Michel, S., Schwietzke, S., Miller, J. B., Bruhwiler, L., Oh, Y., Tans, P. P., Apadula, F., Gatti, L. V., Jordan, A., Necki, J., Sasakawa, M., Morimoto, S., Di Iorio, T., Lee, H., Arduini, J., and Manca, G.: Estimating emissions of methane consistent with atmospheric measurements of methane and δ13C of methane, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 15351–15377, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-15351-2022, 2022. 5. Beck, V.: Determination of the methane budget of the Amazon region utilizing airborne methane observations in combination with atmospheric transport and vegetation modeling, Technical Report No. 29, Ph.D dissertation, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany, ISSN 1615-7400, 2012.
|
|