Analysis of the potential of near ground measurements of CO₂ and CH₄ in London, UK for the monitoring of city-scale emissions using an atmospheric transport model

Abstract

Abstract. Carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4) mole fractions were measured at four near ground sites located in and around London during the summer of 2012 in view to investigate the potential of assimilating such measurements in an atmospheric inversion system for the monitoring of the CO2 and CH4 emissions in the London area. These data were analysed and compared with simulations using a modelling framework suited to building an inversion system: a 2 km horizontal resolution South of England configuration of the transport model CHIMERE driven by European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasting (ECMWF) meteorological forcing, coupled to a 1 km horizontal resolution emission inventory (the UK National Atmospheric Emission Inventory). First comparisons reveal that local sources have a large impact on measurements and these local sources cannot be represented in the model at 2 km resolution. We evaluate methods to minimise some of the other critical sources of misfits between the observation data and the model simulation that overlap the signature of the errors in the emission inventory. These methods should make it easier to identify the corrections that should be applied to the inventory. Analysis is supported by observations from meteorological sites around the city and a three-week period of atmospheric mixing layer height estimations from lidar measurements. The difficulties of modelling the mixing layer depth and thus CO2 and CH4 concentrations during the night, morning and late afternoon led us to focus on the afternoon period for all further analyses. The misfits between observations and model simulations are high for both CO2 and CH4 (i.e., their root mean square (RMS) is between 8 and 12 parts per million (ppm) for CO2 and between 30 and 55 parts per billion (ppb) for CH4 at a given site). By analysing the gradients between the urban sites and a suburban or rural reference site, we are able to decrease the impact of uncertainties in the fluxes and transport outside the London area and in the model domain boundary conditions, and to better focus attention on the signature of London urban CO2 and CH4 emissions. This considerably improves the statistical agreement between the model and observations for CO2 (model–data RMS misfit of between 3 and 7 ppm) and to a lesser degree for CH4 (model–data RMS misfit of between 29 and 38 ppb). Between one of the urban sites and either reference site, selecting the gradients during periods wherein the reference site is upwind of the urban site further decreases the statistics of the misfits in general even though not systematically. In a final attempt to focus on the signature of the city anthropogenic emission in the mole fraction measurements, we use a theoretical ratio of gradients of CO to gradients of CO2 from fossil fuel emissions in the London area to diagnose observation based fossil fuel CO2 gradients, and compare them with the modelled ones. This estimate increases the consistency between the model and the measurements when considering one of the urban sites, but not when considering the other. While this study evaluates different approaches for increasing the consistency between the mesoscale model and the near ground data, and manages to decrease the random component of the analysed model data misfits to an extent that should not be prohibitive to extracting the signal from the London urban emissions, large biases remain in the final misfits. These biases are likely to be due to local emissions, to which the urban near ground sites are highly sensitive. This questions our current ability to exploit urban near ground data for the atmospheric inversion of city emissions based on models at spatial resolution coarser than 2 km.