2010
DOI: 10.1029/2010jd014180
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Inverse modeling of European CH4 emissions 2001–2006

Abstract: [1] European CH 4 emissions are estimated for the period 2001-2006 using a fourdimensional variational (4DVAR) inverse modeling system, based on the atmospheric zoom model TM5. Continuous observations are used from various European monitoring stations, complemented by European and global flask samples from the NOAA/ESRL network. The available observations mainly provide information on the emissions from northwest Europe (NWE), including the UK, Ireland, the BENELUX countries, France and Germany. The inverse mo… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
211
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 147 publications
(216 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
4
211
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, a better approach would be to constrain the global-scale and regional-scale emissions within the same inversion framework, so that the optimized emissions on the global-scale will provide less biased boundary conditions for the regional inversion. Such an approach has been used to constrain CH 4 and N 2 O emissions over South America and Europe (Meirink et al, 2008;Bergamaschi et al, 2010;Corazza et al, 2011) with the nested TM5 model. An issue with this approach is that the adjustment in the emissions on the global scale will have to be projected through long-range transport to the nested domain.…”
Section: Optimization On the Initial And Boundary Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, a better approach would be to constrain the global-scale and regional-scale emissions within the same inversion framework, so that the optimized emissions on the global-scale will provide less biased boundary conditions for the regional inversion. Such an approach has been used to constrain CH 4 and N 2 O emissions over South America and Europe (Meirink et al, 2008;Bergamaschi et al, 2010;Corazza et al, 2011) with the nested TM5 model. An issue with this approach is that the adjustment in the emissions on the global scale will have to be projected through long-range transport to the nested domain.…”
Section: Optimization On the Initial And Boundary Conditionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The TM5 4DVAR inverse modelling system has been used in studies of several atmospheric trace gases, including CH 4 (Meirink et al, 2008b;Bergamaschi et al, 2009Bergamaschi et al, , 2010, CO (Hooghiemstra et al, 2012a, b), CO 2 Guerlet et al, 2013) and CH 3 CCl 3 . Here it is used for estimating large-scale emissions of CH 4 , by optimizing the agreement between measured and model simulated mixing ratios.…”
Section: Tm5 4dvarmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For the measurement error, we have used the estimates given by the data providers, which includes random and, as far as is known, systematic errors and is approximately 0.3 ppb (circa 0.1 %). For the transport model errors, we have estimated two contributions: (1) transport errors (following Rödenbeck et al, 2003) and (2) errors from a lack of subgrid-scale variability (following Bergamaschi et al, 2010), both of which were calculated using forward model simulations run with the same prior fluxes and meteorology as the inversions. The first error uses the 3-D mole fraction gradient around the grid cell where the site is located as a proxy for the transport error, and thus strong vertical and/or horizontal gradients lead to large error estimates.…”
Section: Observation Error Covariance Matrixmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The second error uses the change in mole fraction in the grid cell integrated over the e-folding time for flushing the grid cell with the modelled wind speed. This is used as a proxy for the influence of not accounting for the homogeneous distribution of fluxes within the grid cell and their location relative to the observation site (for details, see Bergamaschi et al 2010). …”
Section: Observation Error Covariance Matrixmentioning
confidence: 99%