the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Urban atmospheric CO2 plumes from space – Part 1: Atmospheric modeling of the urban boundary layer
Abstract. Interpreting atmospheric CO2 observations over cities from space requires transport models that accurately link concentration patterns to surface fluxes, making realistic urban boundary-layer representation critical. This study examines how urban physics parameterizations influence boundary-layer dynamics and near-surface CO2 mixing ratios over the Paris metropolitan area under winter and summer conditions. Using the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model, four configurations are evaluated: no-urban representation (No_URB), a single-layer urban canopy model (SLUCM), and two multi-layer schemes (BEP: Building Effect Parameterization and BEM: Building Energy Model). Model outputs are assessed against surface energy flux observations, turbulence measurements, planetary boundary layer height (PBLH), and near-surface CO2 mixing ratios from dense urban and suburban monitoring networks, alongside wind, temperature and humidity. Urban physics exert strong control on wintertime boundary-layer structure and CO2 variability, with scheme differences driven primarily by sensible heat flux, friction velocity, and turbulent kinetic energy, producing large contrasts in PBLH and CO2 accumulation. In summer, PBLH diurnal patterns converge across schemes, with a characteristic plateau during active convection, and CO2 variability becomes dominated by convective mixing. BEM provides the most physically consistent representation across both seasons. Sensitivity tests with three planetary boundary layer schemes show that Mellor–Yamada–Janjic coupled with BEM best reproduces wintertime CO2, capturing realistic nighttime accumulation and daytime mixing, while Yonsei University and BouLac exhibit systematic biases. These results demonstrate that realistic urban physics combined with an appropriate turbulence scheme are essential for physically consistent urban CO2 simulations, particularly in winter.
- Preprint
(24229 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 12 Aug 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2109', Ivo Suter, 05 Aug 2026 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 85 | 37 | 13 | 135 | 19 | 18 |
- HTML: 85
- PDF: 37
- XML: 13
- Total: 135
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 18
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
The manuscript presents the first part of an evaluation of modelling CO2 with WRF-Chem over the Paris area. The focus is on the impact of various parameterizations of boundary layer processes and urban physics. Specifically four urban canopy represenations and three PBL-schemes were evaluated against meteorological observations, surface flux measurements, CO2-monitoring and lidar measurements. The study concludes that the BEM urban scheme coupled with the MYJ PBL scheme matches the observations best, particularly during winter.
This article is a contribution for urban atmospheric transport modelling and a step to link measurements to emission inventories. The goal and design of the study are very clear. The observational dataset is impressive. The manuscript could benefit from some shortening by trying to avoid repeating information.
My major concern lies in that some of the conclusions should be supported by more evidence or worded more carefully. The model comparison should be supported by adding confidence intervals or significance testing.
Overall, I believe the manuscript is valuable and suitable for publication after revision.
Please find the comments in the attached file.