Quantitative evaluation of the uncertainty sources for the modeling of atmospheric CO 2 concentration within and in the vicinity of Paris city

Jinghui Lian,François-Marie Bréon,Grégoire Broquet,Bo Zheng,Michel Ramonet,Philippe Ciais
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/ACP-2020-540
IF: 6.3
2020-01-01
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Abstract:Abstract. The top-down atmospheric inversion method that couples atmospheric CO2 observations with an atmospheric transport model has been used extensively to quantify CO2 emissions from cities. However, the potential of the method is limited by several sources of misfits between the measured and modeled CO2 that are of different origins than the targeted CO2 emissions. This study investigates the critical sources of errors that can compromise the estimates of the city-scale emissions and identifies the signal of emissions that has to be filtered when doing inversions. A set of one-year forward simulations is carried out using the WRF-Chem model at a horizontal resolution of 1 km focusing on the Paris area with different anthropogenic emission inventories, physical parameterizations and CO2 boundary conditions. The simulated CO2 concentrations are compared with in situ observations from six continuous monitoring stations located within Paris and its vicinity. Results highlight large nighttime observation-model misfits, especially in winter within the city, which are attributed to large uncertainties in the diurnal profile of anthropogenic emissions as well as to errors in the vertical mixing near the surface in the WRF-Chem model. The nighttime biogenic respiration to the CO2 concentration is a significant source of modeling errors during the growing season outside the city. When winds are from continental Europe and the CO2 concentration of incoming air masses is influenced by remote emissions and large-scale biogenic fluxes, differences in the simulated CO2 induced by the two different boundary conditions (CAMS and CarbonTracker) can be of up to 5 ppm. Our results suggest three selection criteria for the CO2 data to be assimilated for the inversion of CO2 emissions from Paris (i) discard data that appear as statistical outliers in the model-data misfits which are interpreted as model\u0027s deficiencies under complex meteorological conditions; (ii) use only afternoon urban measurements in winter and suburban ones in summer; (iii) test the influence of different boundary conditions in inversions. If possible, using additional observations to constrain the boundary inflow, or using CO2 gradients of upwind-downwind stations, rather than absolute CO2 concentration, as atmospheric inversion inputs.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?