Uncertainty in continuous ΔCO-based ΔffCO2 estimates derived from 14C flask and bottom-up ΔCO ∕ ΔffCO2 ratios

Fabian Maier,Ingeborg Levin,Sébastien Conil,Maksym Gachkivskyi,Hugo Denier van der Gon,Samuel Hammer
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-24-8205-2024
IF: 6.3
2024-07-20
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Abstract:Measuring the 14 C / C depletion in atmospheric CO 2 compared with a clean-air reference is the most direct way to estimate the recently added CO 2 contribution from fossil fuel (ff) combustion ( Δ ffCO 2 ) in ambient air. However, as 14 CO 2 measurements cannot be conducted continuously nor remotely, there are only very sparse 14 C-based Δ ffCO 2 estimates available. Continuously measured tracers, like carbon monoxide (CO), that are co-emitted with ffCO 2 can be used as proxies for Δ ffCO 2, provided that the Δ CO / Δ ffCO 2 ratios can be determined correctly (here, Δ CO refers to the CO excess compared with a clean-air reference). In the present study, we use almost 350 14 CO 2 measurements from flask samples collected between 2019 and 2020 at the urban site Heidelberg, Germany, and corresponding analyses from more than 50 afternoon flasks collected between September 2020 and March 2021 at the rural ICOS site Observatoire pérenne de l'environnement (OPE), France, to calculate average 14 C-based Δ CO / Δ ffCO 2 ratios for those sites. For this, we constructed a clean-air reference from the 14 CO 2 and CO measurements of Mace Head, Ireland. By dividing the hourly Δ CO excess observations by the averaged flask ratio, we calculate continuous proxy-based Δ ffCO 2 records. The mean bias between the proxy-based Δ ffCO 2 and the direct 14 C-based Δ ffCO 2 estimates from the flasks is – with 0.31 ± 3.94 ppm for the urban site Heidelberg and − 0.06 ± 1.49 ppm for the rural site OPE – only ca. 3 % at both sites. The root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) between proxy-based Δ ffCO 2 and 14 C-based Δ ffCO 2 is about 4 ppm for Heidelberg and 1.5 ppm for OPE. While this uncertainty can be explained by observational uncertainties alone at OPE, about half of the uncertainty is caused by the neglected variability in the Δ CO / Δ ffCO 2 ratios at Heidelberg. We further show that modeled ratios based on a bottom-up European emission inventory would lead to substantial biases in the Δ CO-based Δ ffCO 2 estimates for both Heidelberg and OPE. This highlights the need for an ongoing observational calibration and/or validation of inventory-based ratios if they are to be applied for large-scale Δ CO-based Δ ffCO 2 estimates, e.g., from satellites.
environmental sciences,meteorology & atmospheric sciences
What problem does this paper attempt to address?