the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Can we gain knowledge on COS anthropogenic and biogenic emissions from a single atmospheric mixing ratios measurement site?
Abstract. Lack of knowledge still remains on many processes leading to COS atmospheric fluxes, either natural such as the oceanic emissions or the vegetation and soil fluxes, or anthropogenic, from industrial activities and power generation. Moreover, COS atmospheric mixing ratio data are still too sparse to evaluate the estimations of these sources and sinks. This study assesses the anthropogenic and biogenic COS fluxes at the regional scale, in the footprint a measurement site in Western Europe, at a seasonal to diurnal time resolution over half a decade. The continuous time series of COS mixing ratios obtained at the monitoring site of Gif-sur-Yvette (in the Paris area) from August 2014 to December 2019 are compared to simulations with the Lagrangian model FLEXPART, transporting oceanic emissions, biogenic land fluxes from the process-model ORCHIDEE and anthropogenic emissions by two different inventories. The anthropogenic emission inventory based on reported industrial emissions and the characteristics of coal power plants in Europe is consistent with the observations. The flat temporal variability applied to anthropogenic fluxes due to lack of information on industrial and power-generation activity in viscose factories and coal-power plants and the potential mismatches in the representation of the plumes emitted from these hot-spots in the model are the main limitations of this inventory. We find that the net ecosystem COS uptake simulated by ORCHIDEE is underestimated in winter at night, which suggests improvements in the parameterization of the nighttime uptake by plants for COS.
- Preprint
(5173 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-549', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2024
Please refer to the supplement file as a pdf.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Isabelle Pison, 21 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-549', M.E. Whelan, 25 Apr 2024
Dear Berchet et al.,
This paper is a good application of the lead author’s work making FLEXPART more accessible. The treatment of the CS2 fields here is an improvement for the field, transforming emissions of CS2 to atmospheric COS with a reasonable conversion rate.
I have a few suggestions for making this work more impactful. It is unclear why the Zumkehr inventory was used without the improvements suggested by Belviso et al., (2023). Belviso et al., demonstrated the drawbacks to this inventory fairly conclusively! It might make sense to make the necessary changes and move on. Additionally, naming the improved anthropogenic scheme “home-made” is confusing. Zumkehr was also likely working from home. Using the designation “This Study” is clearer.
To improve our understanding of the atmospheric OCS balance, it would make sense to use a different biogenic uptake dataset instead, such as SiB4. Comparing SiB4 to ORCHIDEE in this framework might yield some interesting insights into our treatment of plant uptake.
10, 15-23 and Section 3.3, Figure 4: The footprints used here are calculated throughout the day. In efforts involving WRF-STILT, one recommended approach is to average afternoon tower measurements when the boundary layer is typically well-mixed. As the authors note, it could be that there is variation in the tower concentrations because of shifts in the mixing layer rather than shifts in the plant uptake or ocean background. While OCS is undoubtedly being taken up at night by partially-closed stomata, there is also a dynamic shift in the state of the mixed layer in contact with the tower. How well does FLEXPART treat the boundary layer? Perhaps some explanation needs to be included here on the uncertainty introduced by taking footprints at different times of day. Alternatively, averaging concentrations when the layer is stable would side-step some of the synoptic-scale complications.
Minor comments
The title of the article needs to be revised. “Can we gain knowledge on COS anthropogenic and biogenic emissions from a single atmospheric mixing ratios measurement site?” is a yes or no question. Here we learn that OCS uptake is underestimated at night and that there are limitations in the anthropogenic inventory. Perhaps something like, “improvements to anthropogenic and biogenic fluxes of OCS in Western Europe”.
Abstract: use of the word “fluxes” versus “emissions” leads to confusing sentence constructions. Page 1, line 3: “Moreover, COS atmospheric mixing ratio data are still too sparse to evaluate the estimations of these sources and sinks.” - do you mean on the global scale?
4, 25: I don’t see the Mace Head data plotted on Figure 1. Is something missing in the pdf?
Figure 1. Categories in the legend are missing in the graph in (a) and (b). For (a), it appears that the brown is background and the black dots, which end in 2015, are observations from GIF?
6, 5-6: There are good reasons to leave out these fluxes. Making the assumptions explicit, e.g. these fluxes do not contribute meaningfully to the observations, would be useful here.
6, 13: similar results on the global scale?
6, 27: COS uptake is related to stomatal conductance. For C3 and C4 plants, we expect stomatal conductance to increase during the day. Stomatal conductance never quite gets to zero when closed at night or in drought. If the ORCHIDEE plant uptake is based on Berry et al 2013, uptake should vary with stomatal conductance in the model as well as in reality.
7, 7-9: It is unclear what this means. Are the national emissions erroneously attributed to urban hot spots? And we know that these hot spots are an artifact? But looking at Figure 2, it appears that Zumkehr spreads national emissions over the entire country, whereas the improved inventory locates emissions in a collection of hotspots.
Figure 2. It would be good to have a color bar or similar for the contours in 2(f) so that the figure can be understood without digging into the text.
Thanks for the work in interpreting these data. It would be excellent to use this work to initiate a COS observing network analogous to ICOS.
Sincerely,
Mary Whelan
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-549-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Isabelle Pison, 21 Aug 2024
Status: closed (peer review stopped)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-549', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Apr 2024
Please refer to the supplement file as a pdf.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Isabelle Pison, 21 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-549', M.E. Whelan, 25 Apr 2024
Dear Berchet et al.,
This paper is a good application of the lead author’s work making FLEXPART more accessible. The treatment of the CS2 fields here is an improvement for the field, transforming emissions of CS2 to atmospheric COS with a reasonable conversion rate.
I have a few suggestions for making this work more impactful. It is unclear why the Zumkehr inventory was used without the improvements suggested by Belviso et al., (2023). Belviso et al., demonstrated the drawbacks to this inventory fairly conclusively! It might make sense to make the necessary changes and move on. Additionally, naming the improved anthropogenic scheme “home-made” is confusing. Zumkehr was also likely working from home. Using the designation “This Study” is clearer.
To improve our understanding of the atmospheric OCS balance, it would make sense to use a different biogenic uptake dataset instead, such as SiB4. Comparing SiB4 to ORCHIDEE in this framework might yield some interesting insights into our treatment of plant uptake.
10, 15-23 and Section 3.3, Figure 4: The footprints used here are calculated throughout the day. In efforts involving WRF-STILT, one recommended approach is to average afternoon tower measurements when the boundary layer is typically well-mixed. As the authors note, it could be that there is variation in the tower concentrations because of shifts in the mixing layer rather than shifts in the plant uptake or ocean background. While OCS is undoubtedly being taken up at night by partially-closed stomata, there is also a dynamic shift in the state of the mixed layer in contact with the tower. How well does FLEXPART treat the boundary layer? Perhaps some explanation needs to be included here on the uncertainty introduced by taking footprints at different times of day. Alternatively, averaging concentrations when the layer is stable would side-step some of the synoptic-scale complications.
Minor comments
The title of the article needs to be revised. “Can we gain knowledge on COS anthropogenic and biogenic emissions from a single atmospheric mixing ratios measurement site?” is a yes or no question. Here we learn that OCS uptake is underestimated at night and that there are limitations in the anthropogenic inventory. Perhaps something like, “improvements to anthropogenic and biogenic fluxes of OCS in Western Europe”.
Abstract: use of the word “fluxes” versus “emissions” leads to confusing sentence constructions. Page 1, line 3: “Moreover, COS atmospheric mixing ratio data are still too sparse to evaluate the estimations of these sources and sinks.” - do you mean on the global scale?
4, 25: I don’t see the Mace Head data plotted on Figure 1. Is something missing in the pdf?
Figure 1. Categories in the legend are missing in the graph in (a) and (b). For (a), it appears that the brown is background and the black dots, which end in 2015, are observations from GIF?
6, 5-6: There are good reasons to leave out these fluxes. Making the assumptions explicit, e.g. these fluxes do not contribute meaningfully to the observations, would be useful here.
6, 13: similar results on the global scale?
6, 27: COS uptake is related to stomatal conductance. For C3 and C4 plants, we expect stomatal conductance to increase during the day. Stomatal conductance never quite gets to zero when closed at night or in drought. If the ORCHIDEE plant uptake is based on Berry et al 2013, uptake should vary with stomatal conductance in the model as well as in reality.
7, 7-9: It is unclear what this means. Are the national emissions erroneously attributed to urban hot spots? And we know that these hot spots are an artifact? But looking at Figure 2, it appears that Zumkehr spreads national emissions over the entire country, whereas the improved inventory locates emissions in a collection of hotspots.
Figure 2. It would be good to have a color bar or similar for the contours in 2(f) so that the figure can be understood without digging into the text.
Thanks for the work in interpreting these data. It would be excellent to use this work to initiate a COS observing network analogous to ICOS.
Sincerely,
Mary Whelan
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-549-RC2 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Isabelle Pison, 21 Aug 2024
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
356 | 107 | 29 | 492 | 20 | 18 |
- HTML: 356
- PDF: 107
- XML: 29
- Total: 492
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1