the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Preparing for an extensive ∆14CO2 flask sample monitoring campaign over Europe to constrain fossil CO2 emissions
Abstract. During 2024, an intensive Δ14CO2 flask sampling campaign is being conducted at 12 stations across Europe as part of the CO2MVS Research on Supplementary Observations (CORSO) project. These Δ14CO2 samples, combined with CO2 atmospheric measurements, aim to improve fossil CO2 emission estimates across Europe through inverse modeling. In this study, we perform a series of Observing System Simulation Experiments (OSSEs) to assess the added value of this intensive campaign and explore different sampling strategies for optimizing fossil fuel emission estimates. The strategies focus on selecting samples for inversions based on their fossil CO2 and nuclear 14C composition.
We evaluate three sampling approaches: (1) a base scenario using uniform sampling without specific selection criteria, comparing current methods with the addition of flask samples; (2) a strategy that selects samples with high fossil CO2 content; and (3) a combined approach that accounts for nuclear 14C contamination to reduce potential biases from nuclear facilities. Our results suggest that higher sampling density improves the accuracy of fossil CO2 estimates, especially during low-emission periods, such as summer. Increasing the number of samples reduces uncertainty, enhancing the robustness of inverse modeling outcomes. Selecting samples based on fossil CO2 contamination further refines the estimates, but the most significant uncertainty reduction occurs when nuclear contamination is also considered. This combined strategy effectively mitigates biases in regions with high nuclear activity, like France and the UK. These findings highlight the importance of increasing sampling frequency and strategically selecting samples to improve fossil fuel emission estimates across Europe.
- Preprint
(8043 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 09 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3013', Dylan Geissbühler, 03 Apr 2025
reply
General comments: Overall quality of manuscript
The study investigates the potential impact of an intensive Δ¹⁴CO₂ sampling campaign across Europe as part of the CORSO project for an intended 2024 campaign, based on 2018 data across 10 ICOS network stations. By integrating these measurements with CO₂ data in inverse modeling, the research aims to enhance fossil CO₂ emission estimates. The authors use Observing System Simulation Experiments (OSSEs) to assess 3 different sampling strategies: uniform sampling every 3rd day, samples with a focus on high fossil fuel CO₂ contributions and samples with reduced nuclear ¹⁴C contamination. The results suggest that a denser sampling network and targeted selection strategies significantly reduce uncertainty in fossil fuel emission estimates, particularly in regions with nuclear influence, focusing on high fossil CO2 contamination could improve accuracy of emissions estimates, and considering nuclear influence could help minimize potential biases. The study highlights the importance of sample selection for 14CO2 analysis.
In general, the study is well constructed and the hypotheses are clearly formulated making it easy to follow. However some elements could still be improved:
- The paper is quite long and a few passages in the text are essentially repetitions from one another, 2 examples: Nuclear emissions of 14C are explained in the introduction (lines 28 – 34 and detailed after) but then also in section 3.2 (238 – 241), and at the start of the discussion. Also the terrestrial disequilibrium due to the nuclear bomb testing is mentioned multiple times as well (section 2, section 3.1, and explained again fully in section 4.1). Check the paper in general for conciseness.
- A mention of how a subsampling of flask is especially relevant for 14CO2 measurements (cost, sample processing) is missing, in my opinion.
- There are some consistency problems in notations: 14C- radiocarbon, spaces before units, Fig. Vs Figure,...) See below for some examples, but check manuscript thoroughly for these kinds of things.
Specific comments:
- Line 14: are we really talking about a sampling strategy, or more of a subsampling strategy?
- Line 26: check consistency of 14C vs radiocarbon used throughout the manuscript (goes from one to the other)
- Line 37: datasets instead of data sets
- Line 50: remove “such as for Europe”
- Line 52: “The research” -> “Research”
- Lines 54 to 56: this should be moved to previous paragraph
- Line 60: space before m unit
- Line 61: the network stations -> the network of stations
- Line 62: “the measurements represent” -> “measurements should represent”
- Line 66: “these stations” which stations are we talking about, all of them?
- Line 70: (ffCO2) already defined before (line 33)
- Table 1: add units to altitude (which should be elevation, actually) and sampling height
- Table 1 legend should say “Sampling sites included”
- Line 95: a few words about why 2018 was chosen would be nice
- Line 97: space between studies and (
- Line 122: “6km” space between number and units
- Line 124-125: sentence should be rephrased
- For the passage around line 130 about old carbon storage, a source would be nice
- Line 169: section number missing?, also check consistency between section and sec., as well as Fig. and Figure
- Line 208: OSSEs were defined already make sure you do not define abbreviations multiple times, at least in the same chapters
- Line 238: this was already explained in the introduction, remove or shorten
- Line 244: start new sentence before “Therefore,”
- Line 267: no space before CO2
- Line 295: this first section is a repretition from previous information, shorten or remove
- Figure 2: would be nice if the months on the graphs and the tables were properly lined up
- Lines 364-367: not so clear how different points 3 and 4 are
- Figure 3: address missing data for CBW in October, for b) make units more consistent with a) and c) (decimal point), also put ‰ in parenthesis
- Line 416: WCE not defined before
- Line 475: I would remove the first paragraph entirely, or at least merge it with the later paragraph which discusses nuclear influence as well
- Line 539: the sentence should also indicate that a frequent sampling will be more representative as well
- Figure 8: would a zoom on Switzerland be relevant, do you think?
- Figure 8 (legend): July 30th
- Line 556 and 557: right-alignment problem
- Lines 589 and 592: VSI is defined twice
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3013-RC1
Model code and software
Lund University Modular Inverse Algorithm (LUMIA) for Δ14CO2 applications Carlos Gómez-Ortiz and Guillaume Monteil https://zenodo.org/records/8426217
Interactive computing environment
Figures: Preparing for an extensive Δ14CO2 flask sample monitoring campaign over Europe to constrain fossil CO2 emissions Carlos Gómez-Ortiz https://zenodo.org/doi/10.5281/zenodo.13842604
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
147 | 49 | 7 | 203 | 7 | 6 |
- HTML: 147
- PDF: 49
- XML: 7
- Total: 203
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 69 | 34 |
Sweden | 2 | 21 | 10 |
Germany | 3 | 20 | 9 |
China | 4 | 13 | 6 |
United Kingdom | 5 | 12 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 69