the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
German methane fluxes in 2021 estimated with an ensemble-enhanced scaling inversion based on the ICON–ART model
Abstract. A reliable quantification of greenhouse gas emissions is important for climate change mitigation strategies. Inverse methods based on observations and atmospheric transport simulations can support emission quantification down to the national scale, yet, they are often limited by the observing systems, transport model uncertainties, and inversion methodologies. Here, we present a system for observation-based, regional methane flux estimation, which has the potential for long-term operational support of national emission reporting. We apply this to Central Europe in 2021 with focus on Germany, where we distinguish emissions from different anthropogenic sectors. The atmospheric transport is calculated with the numerical weather prediction model ICON–ART at 6.5 km resolution, sampling the meteorological uncertainty with a 12-member transport ensemble. We use a priori fluxes from national reporting to facilitate the validation of reported fluxes. Posterior fluxes are estimated with a modified synthesis inversion method, relying on observations from the Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS). Compared to the a priori, we find a significant increase in methane emissions in Germany and in the Benelux. We estimate German methane emissions (32 ± 19) % higher than the anthropogenic emissions in the national inventory, and attribute this difference mainly to the agricultural sector, although separation from Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF) as well as natural fluxes requires further research. The combination of an ensemble-enhanced numerical weather prediction model for atmospheric transport and good observation coverage paves the way to sector-specific, observation-based national emission estimates.
- Preprint
(3811 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1464', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 Jun 2025
I support this paper for publication subject to the major comments in my attached report.
The changes are mainly to do with a restructuring of the paper to make it easier to read.
I have made a lot of comments, but each should be reasonably quick for the authors to deal with as I do not think any additional experiments are needed to make the work publishable.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1464', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Jun 2025
The authors of "German methane fluxes in 2021 estimated with an ensemble-enhanced scaling inversion based on the ICON–ART model" document and validate a very interesting approach to methane inversions. The manuscript is interesting and understandable, and is definitely worthy of publication. It fits the goals of ACP, and I recommend publication with minor revisions. I only have one small request to the authors, and some smaller comments.
My main point is that I would like to see better visualised how the R matrix as made in this paper improves the inversion. The calculation is quite complex, and covers a large part of the paper. Nevertheless, some arbitrary choices remain (like the 10 ppb standard, and the inflation factor). I now wonder if 'standard' R values (like in Steiner et al., 2024b (reference as in manuscript):" we use a model-data mismatch of 2 ppb + 40% of the anthropogenic signal") would give similar results. For this, the χ2-innovation can be used. χ2 is used to assess the uncertainty, relative to the model-observation mismatch (i.e. ((y-Hx)2 ) / HPHT, where y are observations, Hx are transported (prior mean) fluxes and P is the prior covariance matrix of the fluxes). One would like the χ2-innovation to be as close as possible to 1.0 (which means uncertainty and model error are balanced). It would help the paper to include a figure of the χ2-innovation to show that the 'new' R is an improvement over e.g. Steiner et al., 2024b. A run with a fixed (diagonal) R can also be included in Figure 7.
Some other, smaller comments are listed below
- Almost all IDs tested are within 15% in their flux-solution. To me, this seems like the posterior uncertainty is under-estimated. Can the authors comment on this?
- Can the authors explain to me the strange boundaries in Fig. 4b and d? With this, I mean the darker lines that run through e.g. France.
- in Section 5.5.1, a gaussian noise of 2ppb random error is added to the pseudo-observations. However, the σconst is already 10 ppb, which means the added white noise is quite small compared to the uncertainty associated to these observations. Can the authors explain this choice?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1464-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
553 | 63 | 17 | 633 | 15 | 30 |
- HTML: 553
- PDF: 63
- XML: 17
- Total: 633
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 30
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1