4.3 Article

Atmospheric inverse estimates of methane emissions from Central California

期刊

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2008JD011671

关键词

-

资金

  1. U. S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]
  2. Div Atmospheric & Geospace Sciences
  3. Directorate For Geosciences [0829401] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methane mixing ratios measured at a tall tower are compared to model predictions to estimate surface emissions of CH4 in Central California for October-December 2007 using an inverse technique. Predicted CH4 mixing ratios are calculated based on spatially resolved a priori CH4 emissions and simulated atmospheric trajectories. The atmospheric trajectories, along with surface footprints, are computed using the Weather Research and Forecast (WRF) coupled to the Stochastic Time-Inverted Lagrangian Transport (STILT) model. An uncertainty analysis is performed to provide quantitative uncertainties in estimated CH4 emissions. Three inverse model estimates of CH4 emissions are reported. First, linear regressions of modeled and measured CH4 mixing ratios obtain slopes of 0.73 +/- 0.11 and 1.09 +/- 0.14 using California-specific and Edgar 3.2 emission maps, respectively, suggesting that actual CH4 emissions were about 37 +/- 21% higher than California-specific inventory estimates. Second, a Bayesian source analysis suggests that livestock emissions are 63 +/- 22% higher than the a priori estimates. Third, a Bayesian region analysis is carried out for CH4 emissions from 13 subregions, which shows that inventory CH4 emissions from the Central Valley are underestimated and uncertainties in CH4 emissions are reduced for subregions near the tower site, yielding best estimates of flux from those regions consistent with source analysis results. The uncertainty reductions for regions near the tower indicate that a regional network of measurements will be necessary to provide accurate estimates of surface CH4 emissions for multiple regions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据