4.7 Article

A multiyear estimate of methane fluxes in Alaska from CARVE atmospheric observations

期刊

GLOBAL BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLES
卷 30, 期 10, 页码 1441-1453

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1002/2016GB005419

关键词

-

资金

  1. Carnegie Distinguished Post-doctoral Fellowship
  2. National Aeronautics and Space Administration

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Methane (CH4) fluxes from Alaska and other arctic regions may be sensitive to thawing permafrost and future climate change, but estimates of both current and future fluxes from the region are uncertain. This study estimates CH4 fluxes across Alaska for 2012-2014 using aircraft observations from the Carbon in Arctic Reservoirs Vulnerability Experiment (CARVE) and a geostatistical inverse model (GIM). We find that a simple flux model based on a daily soil temperature map and a static map of wetland extent reproduces the atmospheric CH4 observations at the statewide, multiyear scale more effectively than global-scale process-based models. This result points to a simple and effective way of representing CH4 fluxes across Alaska. It further suggests that process-based models can improve their representation of key processes and that more complex processes included in these models cannot be evaluated given the information content of available atmospheric CH4 observations. In addition, we find that CH4 emissions from the North Slope of Alaska account for 24% of the total statewide flux of 1.74 +/- 0.26 Tg CH4 (for May-October). Global-scale process models only attribute an average of 3% of the total flux to this region. This mismatch occurs for two reasons: process models likely underestimate wetland extent in regions without visible surface water, and these models prematurely shut down CH4 fluxes at soil temperatures near 0 degrees C. Lastly, we find that the seasonality of CH4 fluxes varied during 2012-2014 but that total emissions did not differ significantly among years, despite substantial differences in soil temperature and precipitation.

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

4.7
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