WP15. 5: Inverse modeling of European halocarbon emissions D

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Ozone Assimilation in the Chemistry Transport Model CHIMERE using an Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) : Preliminary tests over the Ile de France region 2.
Advertisements

S Larssen: PM-PP-Stockholm-Oct-2003.ppt slide 1 PM in Europe - State and past trends Emissions and concentration levels Steinar Larssen Norwegian Institute.
Fighting the Great Challenges in Large-scale Environmental Modelling I. Dimov n Great challenges in environmental modelling n Impact of climatic changes.
NILU Contributions to EUCAARI Andreas Stohl, John Burkhart, Kjetil Tørseth Norwegian Institute for Air Research Task 5.2: EUCAARI Platform – Data  Task.
TEMIS user workshop, Frascati, 8-9 October 2007 Status of Central European NO 2 products Dominik Brunner, Daniel Schaub, Brigitte Buchmann Empa, Swiss.
Improvement and validation of OMI NO 2 observations over complex terrain A contribution to ACCENT-TROPOSAT-2, Task Group 3 Yipin Zhou, Dominik Brunner,
Estimation of daily CO 2 fluxes over Europe by inversion of atmospheric continuous data C. Carouge and P. Peylin ; P. Bousquet ; P. Ciais ; P. Rayner Laboratoire.
Methane inversion from satellite, TRANSCOM workshop, Jena, May 2003 Inverse modelling of methane sources and sinks using satellite observations Jan.
NOCES meeting Plymouth, 2005 June Top-down v.s. bottom-up estimates of air-sea CO 2 fluxes : No winner so far … P. Bousquet, A. Idelkadi, C. Carouge,
Inversion of continuous data over Europe : a pseudo-data analysis. C. Carouge and P. Peylin ; P. Bousquet ; P. Ciais ; P. Rayner Laboratoire des Sciences.
Interannual inversions with continuous data and recent inversions with the CSIRO CC model Rachel Law, CSIRO Atmospheric Research Another set of pseudodata.
Workshop QA/QC 2-3 Oct 2004 Copenhagen Comparing National GHG Inventories with Independent Estimates Including Inverse Monitoring Peter Bergamaschi, Frank.
1 Applications of inverse modeling for understanding of emissions and analysis of observations Rona Thompson, Andreas Stohl, Ignacio Pisso, Cathrine Lund.
InGOS and the future for non-CO 2 greenhouse gas observations Alex Vermeulen, Arjan Hensen, Sylvia Walter, Peter Bergamaschi, Simon O’Doherty, Lynn Hazan,
INTERCONTINENTAL TRANSPORT OF AIR POLLUTION WITH GMI AND PLANS FOR THE NEW HEMISPHERIC TRANSPORT OF AIR POLLUTANTS (HTAP) MODEL INTERCOMPARISON STUDY ROKJIN.
ICDC7, Boulder, September 2005 CH 4 TOTAL COLUMNS FROM SCIAMACHY – COMPARISON WITH ATMOSPHERIC MODELS P. Bergamaschi 1, C. Frankenberg 2, J.F. Meirink.
Carboeurope Annual Meeting Poznan, 8-12 Oct Recent CO 2 gradients over Europe M.Ramonet, P.Ciais et al.
1 ESA Noordwijk 20 Jan 2004 Frank Raes, Peter Bergamaschi, Hugh Eva, Alan Belward Institute for Environment and Sustainability Joint Research Centre European.
Sensitivity of top-down correction of 2004 black carbon emissions inventory in the United States to rural-sites versus urban-sites observational networks.
CO over South America Modeling inter annual variability of biomass burning emissions Pim Hooghiemstra & Maarten Krol 28 November 2011 – TM meeting.
1 Using Hemispheric-CMAQ to Provide Initial and Boundary Conditions for Regional Modeling Joshua S. Fu 1, Xinyi Dong 1, Kan Huang 1, and Carey Jang 2 1.
Indianapolis flux (INFLUX) in-situ network: quantification of urban atmospheric boundary layer greenhouse gas dry mole fraction enhancements 18 th WMO/IAEA.
Assimilating tropospheric ozone data from TES Mark Parrington, Dylan Jones University of Toronto Kevin Bowman Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute.
Regional Inversion of continuous atmospheric CO 2 measurements A first attempt ! P., P., P., P., and P. Philippe Peylin, Peter Rayner, Philippe Bousquet,
Data Assimilation Working Group Dylan Jones (U. Toronto) Kevin Bowman (JPL) Daven Henze (CU Boulder) 1 IGC7 4 May 2015.
Long term and high resolution observations of climate altering halogenated gases are carried out in several research stations worldwide distributed in.
Tenth Annual Meeting of the WG: Objectives and Agenda Jennifer H. Madans U.S.A. 10/29/20151.
On the Model’s Ability to Capture Key Measures Relevant to Air Quality Policies through Analysis of Multi-Year O 3 Observations and CMAQ Simulations Daiwen.
How well can we model air pollution meteorology in the Houston area? Wayne Angevine CIRES / NOAA ESRL Mark Zagar Met. Office of Slovenia Jerome Brioude,
Deguillaume L., Beekmann M., Menut L., Derognat C.
© Crown copyright Met Office Estimating UK and NW European CH 4 emissions using inversion modelling Alistair Manning with thanks to Simon O’Doherty & Dickon.
An attempt to quantify fossil fuel CO 2 over Europe Ute Karstens 1, Ingeborg Levin 2 1 Max-Planck-Institut für Biogeochemie, Jena 2 Institut für Umweltphysik,
INTERCONTINENTAL TRANSPORT OF OZONE AND ITS SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN EUROPE Dick Derwent rdscientific 2 nd ICAP Workshop Chapel Hill, North Carolina October.
Itsushi UNO*, Youjiang HE, Research Institute for Applied Mechanics, Kyushu University, Kasuga, Fukuoka, JAPAN Toshimasa OHARA, Jun-ichi KUROKAWA, Hiroshi.
Quantifying the decrease in anthropogenic methane emissions in Europe and Siberia using modeling and atmospheric measurements of carbon dioxide and methane.
1 Overview Community Health Modeling Working Group Meeting Tony Servin, P.E. Modeling Support Section Planning and Technical Support Division May 6, 2003.
Detection and Quantification of Atmospheric Boundary Layer Greenhouse Gas Dry Mole Fraction Enhancements from Urban Emissions: Results from INFLUX NOAA.
Intercomparison of Mesoscale and Global Atmospheric Transport Models over Western Europe P. Ciais2), A.T. Vermeulen1), C. Geels3), P. Peylin2), M. Gloor4),
The ENSEMBLES high- resolution gridded daily observed dataset Malcolm Haylock, Phil Jones, Climatic Research Unit, UK WP5.1 team: KNMI, MeteoSwiss, Oxford.
Speaker I Organism I adresse mail WP9: NEW METHODS TO ASSESS THE IMPACT OF COASTAL OBSERVING SYSTEMS Presented by Srdjan Dobricic on.
Comparison of adjoint and analytical approaches for solving atmospheric chemistry inverse problems Monika Kopacz 1, Daniel J. Jacob 1, Daven Henze 2, Colette.
The application of Models-3 in national policy Samantha Baker Air and Environment Quality Division, Defra.
F-gases emissions through inverse modelling Stefan Reimann Dominik Brunner Christoph A. Keller.
Potential of 14 CO 2 to constrain emissions at country scale Y. Wang, G. Broquet, P. Ciais, F. Vogel, F. Chevallier, N. Kadygrov, L. Wu, R. Wang, S. Tao.
Joint EMEP/WGE meeting, Geneva, 2016 Evaluation of B[a]P pollution in the EMEP region: temporal trends and spatial variability Alexey Gusev, Olga Rozovskaya,
Evaluation of TM5 performance for assimilation purpose
CO2 sources and sinks in China as seen from the global atmosphere
Joint thematic session on B(a)P pollution: main activities and results
EGU, European Geosciences Union General Assembly, April 2007 Wien, Austria. Time series and trends of tropospheric halocarbons in the Mediterranean.
Advisor: Michael McElroy
HFC-152a 4-hourly mixing ratios normalised by monthly mean HFC-134a
Progress in assessment of POP pollution in EMEP region.
Overview of country-specific studies of heavy metal and POP pollution
Focus of analysis – reason for using PRECIS RCM
&file 22/02/2019 National Programmes under the National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD) André Zuber, European Commission, DG Environment Working group.
Marine Strategy Framework Directive: Status of reporting
Marine Environment and Water Industry Unit
SRNWP-PEPS COSMO General Meeting September 2005
ESSnet SAE project meeting Neuchatel, 7-8 July 2011
Alexey Gusev, Victor Shatalov, Olga Rozovskaya, Nadejda Vulyh
ENEA, National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable
Inverse modeling of European sources:
Uncertainties of heavy metal pollution assessment
Trends in sulphur and nitrogen components
Wind Energy Potential in Europe: 2020 – 2030
19th TFMM Meeting, Geneva May 3rd 2018
First use of satellite AOD data for EMEP model validation for PM
Model assessment of HM and POP pollution of the EECCA region
Presentation transcript:

WP15. 5: Inverse modeling of European halocarbon emissions D WP15.5: Inverse modeling of European halocarbon emissions D. Brunner, S. Henne, Empa, Switzerland A. Manning, UK MetOffice, United Kingdom R. Thompson, A. Stohl, NILU, Norway INGOS Kickoff-Meeting, Harlem (NL), 21-21 Nov 2011

Plans for InGOS Task 15.5 Task 15.5: Modeling of halocarbons lead: Empa; contributors: NILU, MET Inverse modeling of European halocarbon emissions based on different Lagrangian particle dispersion models Deliverables: D15.11: European halocarbon inversions using improved halocarbon measurements at InGOS stations (M42 = 1 Apr2015) D15.14: Model intercomparison and analysis of European emissions of most important halocarbons with large GWPs (M45 = 1 Jul 2015) Milestone “First European halocarbon inversions using measurements at InGOS stations” (Oct 2013)

Modeling Protocol for 1st Set of Experiments distributed in April 2013 Group Model Meteorology Method References Empa1 FLEXPART ECMWF analyses Extended Brunner et al., 2012, 2013 0.2° x 0.2°, 3-hrly Kalman Filter Empa2 FLEXPART ECMWF analyses Bayesian Stohl et al., 2009, 2010 0.2° x 0.2°, 3-hrly inversion Vollmer et al., 2009 NILU FLEXPART ECMWF analyses Bayesian Thompson et al., 2011, 2014 0.2° x 0.2°, 3-hrly inversion UKMO NAME UKMO analyses Simulated Manning et al., 2011 25 x 25 km2, 3-hrly annealing Rigby et al., 2011 4 Inversion experiments Measurements from AGAGE sites Mace Head, Jungfraujoch and Mt. Cimone Observations extracted by Empa from AGAGE archive and re-distributed to all partners ID Trace gas A priori inventory Time period H11 HFC-125 EDGARv4.2 2008 2011 H12 HFC-134a EDGARv4.2 2008 2011 H13 HCFC-141b EDGARv4.2 2008 2011 H14 HFC-125 no a priori 2011

Modeling Protocol for 1st Set of Experiments Model output – Station time series observation value assimilated (e.g. 3-hour mean) applied measurement uncertainty applied model uncertainty overall data uncertainty (model-data mismatch) a priori mixing ratio a posteriori mixing ratio Model output - Emissions Gridded annual emissions (kg cell-1 yr-1 or kg m-2 yr-1) for a domain covering at least the region 12°W-24°E, 36°N-58°N Aggregated emissions for at least the following countries: Italy, Germany, BeNeLux, Ireland, United Kingdom, France, Spain+Portugal, Austria, Switzerland Uncertainties of aggregated country emissions Original deadline: 31 August 2013; All results received by December 2013; MS65

Mean Surface Sensitivity Maps (footprints) of the 3 Measurement Sites (2011) Mace Head (10 m a.s.l.) Jungfraujoch (3580 m a.s.l) Monte Cimone (2165 m a.s.l) Corresponding reduced grids for mathematical inversion Empa-1 UKMO NILU

Posterior HFC-125 Time Series Mace Head meas full KF Baseline remains low for NILU: Does this result in increased UK/Ireland emsission?

Posterior HFC-125 Time Series Jungfraujoch meas Mt. Cimone

Posterior HFC-134a Time Series Mace Head meas

Posterior HFC-134a Time Series Jungfraujoch meas Mt. Cimone

Comparison of Gridded Emissions HFC-125 Empa NILU UKMO HFC-134a Empa NILU UKMO

Comparison of National Total Emissions HFC-125 Italy: 2008: 891 tons Reasonable agreement with UNFCCC reported values for Italy, UK, Benelux Higher than reported emissions for Germany, Spain+Portugal, Ireland Large scatter for France, poor model results for Switzerland Uncertainty estimates too optimistic for Empa1 and UKMO

Comparison of National Total Emissions HFC-134a Reasonable agreement with UNFCCC reported values for Germany, France, Spain + Portugal, Ireland, Benelux Higher than reported values for Italy, lower than reported for UK Larger differences between models than for HFC-125

Conclusions From 1st Experiment HCFC-141b inversion not feasible (not enough pollution peaks) Despite large differences in grid resolution similar ability to reproduce observations (better at MHD than at JFJ, better at JFJ than CMN) Model results in same range as bottom-up estimates UNFCCC likely underestimates HFC-125 emissions from Ireland and Iberian countries UNFCCC likely underestimates HFC-134a emissions from Italy and overestimates those from UK Model results often deviate from each other more than uncertainty estimates would allow (Empa and UKMO uncertainties too small) Results sensitive to design of covariance matrices & prior uncertainties Second round needed: enhanced setup for better comparability (e.g. land-sea mask, resolution, uncertainties)

Modeling Protocol for 2nd Set of Experiments distributed in Sept 2014 Group Model Meteorology Method References Empa1 FLEXPART ECMWF analyses Extended Brunner et al., 2012, 2013 0.2° x 0.2°, 3-hrly Kalman Filter Empa2 FLEXPART ECMWF analyses Bayesian Stohl et al., 2009, 2010 0.2° x 0.2°, 3-hrly inversion Vollmer et al., 2009 NILU FLEXPART ECMWF analyses Bayesian Thompson et al., 2011, 2014 0.2° x 0.2°, 3-hrly inversion UKMO NAME UKMO analyses Simulated Manning et al., 2011 25 x 25 km2, 3-hrly annealing Rigby et al., 2011 Additional reporting of: Time series of a-priori and a-posteriori baseline mole factions A-posteriori emissions and uncertainties on regular grid 4 Inversion experiments Measurements from AGAGE sites Mace Head, Jungfraujoch and Mt. Cimone Updated observation uncertainty Updated a-priori uncertainties (Empa) ID Trace gas A priori inventory Time period H11v2 HFC-125 EDGARv4.2_FT2010 2011 H12v2 HFC-134a EDGARv4.2_FT2010 2011 H13v2 SF6 EDGARv4.2_FT2010 2011 H14v2 HFC-125 no/const a priori (100 % unc) 2011 EDGAR 4.2_FT2010 Contains only point sources in Western Europe? Fall back to 4.2 2008

Comparison of National Total Emissions (2nd Set) HFC-125 Reasonable agreement with UNFCCC reported values for Italy, UK, Benelux Higher than reported emissions for Germany, Spain+Portugal, Ireland Different emissions distribution France vs. Benelux

Comparison of National Total Emissions (2nd Set) HFC-134a Reasonable agreement with UNFCCC reported values for France, Spain + Portugal, Ireland, Benelux Higher than reported values for Italy, lower than reported for UK Large values for De and Benelux in Empa probably artefacts

H11 vs. H14: Performance Analysis

H11 vs. H14: Prior Emissions

H11 vs H14: Posterior Emissions

H11 vs. H14: National Totals

SF6: Surface Sensitivities HFC-125: MHD, JFJ, CMN SF6: MHD, JFJ

SF6: Prior Time Series Mace Head Jungfraujoch

SF6: Posterior Time Series Mace Head Jungfraujoch

SF6 Emission Adjustment Prior emissions Posterior emissions changes

SF6: National Totals Uncertainty Reduction

Preliminary Conclusions From 2nd Experiment HFC-125 and HFC-134a (H11, H12): minor changes from 1st experiments H11 vs. H14 Similar results with constant a-priori instead of EDGAR a-priori (Empa2) Larger increases in FR, ES, IT for H14 (Empa2) SF6 (Empa2) Limited sensitivity to Spain, Portugal and Southern Italy Emission reduction in CH, DE Emission reduction in ES, FR, but large uncertainty remaining Emissions confirmed in IT

Final agreement on settings for 2nd experiment Outlook Final agreement on settings for 2nd experiment Update on EDGAR 4.2_FT2010? Deduction of national emissions and their uncertainties Regular grid uncertainties Results of 2nd experiment submitted to Empa by 1 Jan 2015 (ALL, D15.11, M42) Draft of inter-comparison report prepared for reviewing within Task by 1 Apr 2015 (Empa, D15.14, M45)