View
215
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
An attempt to quantify An attempt to quantify
fossil fuel COfossil fuel CO22 over over
EuropeEurope
Ute Karstens1, Ingeborg Levin2
1 Max-Planck-Institut für Biogeochemie, Jena2 Institut für Umweltphysik, Universität Heidelberg
How large is the contribution from fossil fuels to the amount
of CO2 in the atmosphere?
… from a modeller’s perspective
February COFebruary CO22 Fluxes Fluxes
Biome-BGC NEE (Churkina et al., 2003)
10-9 kg C m-2 s-1
0 10 20 30 40 50-10
February 2002annual mean 2000
Fossil fuel CO2
(EDGAR V3.2 FT, Olivier et al., 2005)
Heidelberg: February 2002 Heidelberg: February 2002 (REgional (REgional MOdel)MOdel)
Heidelberg: June 2002Heidelberg: June 2002 (REgional (REgional MOdel)MOdel)
Schauinsland: February 2002Schauinsland: February 2002 (REgional (REgional MOdel)MOdel)
Fossil fuel experimentFossil fuel experiment
Objective:
Assess the impact of new « hourly estimates »
of fossil fuel emissions over Europe
at continental sites using different transport
models
Inventories:
• TransCom 3• EDGAR ft 2000 yearly• EDGAR ft 2000 hourly• IER 2000 hourly
Models:• LMDz• TM5• TM3• DEHM• REMO
Fossil fuel experimentFossil fuel experiment
Feb MarJan Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec2002
How to measure fossil fuel CO2
in the atmosphere?
—› Radiocarbon (14C) in atmospheric CO2 …
… because fossil fuel CO2 contains no 14C
and dilutes atmospheric 14CO2
1414COCO22 monitoring sites in monitoring sites in (Carbo)Europe(Carbo)Europe
Paris
Lutjewad
HeidelbergSchauinsland
JungfraujochKrakow
Kasprowy
Mace Head
REMO mean european fossil fuel CO2 in January 2002 at 130m [ppm]
Measured COMeasured CO22(foss) mixing ratio(foss) mixing ratio
Data provided by R. Neubert (Lutjewad) and K. Rozanski (Krakow)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
15
10
5
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
CO
2 fo
ssil
fuel
[p
pm
]
Comparison with REMOComparison with REMO
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
15
10
5
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
CO
2 fo
ssil
fuel
[p
pm
]
Measured COMeasured CO22(foss) mixing ratio(foss) mixing ratio
Geels et al., 2005, CO2 model comparison
Comparison with modelsComparison with models
CO
2 fo
ssil
fuel
[p
pm
] 12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
20
15
10
5
0
-5
JULY – 1998 DECEMBER – 1998
mh
d
cbw
sch
jfj
hei
hu
n
pal
tvr
prs
mh
d
cbw
sch
jfj
hei
hu
n
pal
tvr
prs
TM3LMDZ
HANKDEHM
REMOOBS
… but the network of 14C measurements is sparse:
8 - 10 stations across Europe
… and the temporal resolution is poor:
weekly means
14C is an excellent tracer for fossil fuel CO2
—›proxies/surrogates needed
to substitute 14CO2 observations
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
CO/COCO/CO22 fossil fuel emission ratios fossil fuel emission ratios 20002000
EDGAR V3.2 FT 2000 (Olivier et al., 2005)
mmol / mol
10 20 30 40 50 600
annual mean emissionson global 1°x1° grid
IER mean 2000(Scholz et al., IER 2005)
hourly emissionson 50 km x 50 km grid
Comparison of measured and REMO-Comparison of measured and REMO-modelled atmospheric CO and modelled atmospheric CO and
COCO22(foss)(foss)
CO and CO2(foss) corrected with 222Rn(obs)/222Rn(mod)
Comparison of measured and REMO-Comparison of measured and REMO-modelled CO/COmodelled CO/CO22(foss) ratios(foss) ratios
mod
obsmod2
corr2 CO
CO)foss(CO)foss(CO
Mean ratios
[ppb/ppm]:
Observations: 13.5±2.5
REMO & EDGAR:
12.7±0.6
REMO & IER:
11.0±0.8
CO2(foss)corr RMSE
[%]
REMO & EDGAR: 21.4
REMO & IER: 42.7
Conclusions (I):Conclusions (I):
Fossil fuel CO2 emissions in Europe contribute almost half to
the continental CO2 signal.
Monthly mean fossil fuel CO2 levels at urban sites can be
determined by high precision 14CO2 measurements to better
than ±10% in winter and about ±30% in summer.
At remote sites, the mean fossil fuel CO2 signal is small (1-5
ppm) and can be determined by 14CO2 measurements only to
about 30%.
14C-derived fossil fuel CO2 at selected stations is needed to
validate emissions inventories and assess model estimates of
fossil fuel CO2.
Conclusions (II):Conclusions (II):
CO is a potentially applicable surrogate tracer for fossil fuel CO2,
however,
Emissions inventories of CO and fossil fuel CO2 are yet not accurate enough to apply it quantitatively,
Non-fossil CO sources, in particular soil emissions and their temporal variations, strongly influence the results and need to be estimated more accurately,
The catchment area and relative mix of emissions needs to be known accurately, this requires modelling,
Validation at a larger number of sites is necessary e.g. at one site per country, at least in Europe.
Thank you !Thank you !
Radiocarbon Radiocarbon 1414C C ((1414C, radioactive life time C, radioactive life time = 8300 years)= 8300 years)
Natural 14C production by reactions of neutrons from cosmic radiation with atmospheric Nitrogen natural atmospheric background level
Artificial 14C production via atmospheric nuclear weapon tests in the 1950s and 1960s
„Negative 14C source“ via burning of fossil fuels and cement production
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
14CO2 Vermunt
14CO2 Jungfraujoch
14C tree rings [Stuiver and Quay, 1981]
14C
[‰]
1985 1990 1995 2000 20050
50
100
150
200
continental reference Schauinsland monthly means Heidelberg monthly means
14
C [‰
]
Long-term Long-term 1414COCO22 observations in observations in EuropeEurope
„clean“ 14CO2
background level in the Alps
Depletion of the 14CO2 level close to fossil fuel sources
Suesseffect
bombtests
Monthly mean fossil fuel COMonthly mean fossil fuel CO22 at at Schauinsland station and in Schauinsland station and in
HeidelbergHeidelberg
mean fossil fuel CO2 offset:
Schauinsland:ca. 1.4 ppm
Heidelberg:ca. 10 ppm
0
50
100
150
200
continental reference Schauinsland monthly means Heidelberg monthly means
1
4C
[‰]
0
5
10Schauinsland
1985 1990 1995 2000 20050
20
40 total offset fossil fuel offset
Heidelberg
foss
il fu
el C
O2 [p
pm
]
Regional Atmospheric Model REMORegional Atmospheric Model REMO
0.5° x 0.5° horizontal resolution 20 vertical layers Semi-hemispheric model domain (> 30°N) Online tracer transport Prescribed emissions and surface fluxes Parameterization of CO chemistry Initial and lateral boundary conditions:
Metorology: ECMWF analyses CO: MOZART global CTM (Horowitz et al., 2003) CO2: TM3 global transport model
(Heimann and Körner, 2003)
Surface fluxes used in REMOSurface fluxes used in REMO
CO Emissions Fossil fuel burning (EDGAR V3.2 extrapolated) Fossil fuel burning in Europe (IER 2000, extrap.) Fuelwood burning (EDGAR V3.2) Agricultural waste burning (EDGAR V3.2) Biomass bruning (Hao and Liu, 1994) Soil emission (Müller, 1992) Ocean emission (Brasseur et al., 1998)
CO2 Surface fluxes Fossil fuel burning (EDGAR V3.2 extrapolated) Fossil fuel burning in Europe (IER 2000, extrap.) Terrestrial Biosphere Model BIOME-BGC
(Churkina et al., 2003) Ocean fluxes (Takahashi et al., 1999)
Comparison of measured and REMO-Comparison of measured and REMO-modelled CO/ffCOmodelled CO/ffCO22 ratios ratios
Mean ratios [ppb/ppm]:
Observations: 13.5±2.5
REMO & EDGAR: 12.7±0.6REMO & IER: 11.0±0.8
EDGAR (only FF): 11.2IER (only FF): 12.4
Comparison of measured and REMO-Comparison of measured and REMO-modelled CO/COmodelled CO/CO22(foss) ratios(foss) ratios
EDGAR(only foss):
34.4
IER(only foss): 28.8mod
obsmod2
corr2 CO
CO)foss(CO)foss(CO
Mean ratios
[ppb/ppm]:
Observations: 13.5±2.5
REMO & EDGAR:
12.7±0.6
REMO & IER:
11.0±0.8
CO2(foss)corr RMSE
[%]
REMO & EDGAR: 21.4
REMO & IER: 42.7
Measured COMeasured CO22(foss) mixing ratio(foss) mixing ratio
Data provided by R. Neubert (Lutjewad) and K. Rozanski (Krakow)
Comparison with REMOComparison with REMO35 ppm
5 ppm
20 ppm
35 ppm
Recommended