the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Concurrent assimilation of methane fluxes and concentrations with a 4D LETKF for Germany in 2021 based on ICON–ART
Abstract. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emission quantification is crucial for assessing and mitigating climate change. We present a data assimilation system that can adjust methane concentrations and fluxes concurrently, by augmenting the state vector. We rely on the high resolution numerical weather prediction model ICON to simulate the atmospheric transport of GHG and the associated uncertainties, and assimilate to GHG observations of the Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS) station network with a 4D Local Ensemble Transform Kalman Filter (LETKF) system. We use two different approaches to adjust the emissions, one with a perturbed field, the other with a split into emission categories. The results confirm significantly higher methane emissions in Germany compared to the reported national inventory, as well as higher emissions in the BeNeLux region. The 4D LETKF contributes to a comprehensive system to validate national greenhouse gas emission reporting, adding the advantage of spatial flexibility for flux attribution and paving the way for near real time applications.
- Preprint
(4497 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 19 Oct 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3221', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Sep 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-3221/egusphere-2026-3221-RC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-3221-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-3221', Anonymous Referee #2, 27 Sep 2026
reply
General comments
This manuscript presents a 4D LETKF system that uses atmospheric methane concentration observations to jointly update methane concentrations and emissions. The approach is potentially valuable and the overall rationale is sound, but several aspects of the methodology and the interpretation of the results need clarification.
Major comments
- Title and description of the method. The current title may give the impression that methane flux observations are assimilated. As I understand it, the assimilated observations are methane concentrations, while the state vector is augmented to allow the atmospheric concentrations and emissions to be updated concurrently from their prior estimates. Please make this distinction clear in the title and throughout the manuscript. For example, the title could be revised to: “Joint estimation of atmospheric methane concentrations and emissions using a 4D LETKF for Germany in 2021 based on ICON–ART.”
- Contribution of the augmented state vector. The manuscript appears to indicate that including emissions in the state vector reduces the concentration adjustment. Please explain how the observational increments are apportioned between concentrations and emissions, and what evidence shows that the resulting estimates are more accurate. Previous studies also report increased methane emissions for 2021, although they may represent emission adjustments differently. Could a comparison or sensitivity experiment clarify what additional information or benefit comes from explicitly including emissions in the augmented state vector, compared with adjusting emissions through inversion parameters?
- Cross-covariances among state variables. Please explain how the LETKF represents covariances between atmospheric concentrations and emissions, and among emissions from different categories. Are these cross-covariances estimated from the ensemble, specified in another way, or limited through localization? Please also describe how the method addresses potentially spurious correlations arising from the finite ensemble size.
- Background and boundary-condition uncertainties. An unbiased background is important for interpreting the analysis increments, but it can be difficult to ensure in practice. Please describe how the CAMS boundary concentrations are evaluated or bias-corrected, and quantify their uncertainty. Does using alternative or perturbed CAMS boundary concentrations affect the posterior estimates? Please also clarify how the initial conditions are set and whether the inversion includes a spin-up period.
Specific comments
- Page 1, Line 20: The statement “but challenges remain as pointed out by Ganesan and Manning (2025)” is too general. Please briefly identify the specific challenge or challenges relevant to this study.
- Page 2, Line 50: Please specify what the ensemble consists of—for example, ensemble members generated by perturbing initial or boundary conditions, model physics, or other parameters. How does the ensemble help address transport error? An ensemble may characterize transport uncertainty, but it does not necessarily reduce systematic transport bias. Please clarify whether the method is intended to quantify transport uncertainty, reduce transport error, or both.
- Page 4, Line 81: “Online emissions module (OEM) module” is redundant. Please delete one occurrence of “module.”
- Page 4, Line 85: Please specify the interpolation method used to remap the relevant fields to the model grid, such as bilinear or nearest-neighbour interpolation. If different methods are used for different fields, please state this.
- Page 4, Line 90: Please discuss the uncertainty in the CAMS boundary concentrations and its potential impact on the inversion. Is there a sensitivity of the posterior estimates to the CAMS boundary conditions? Please also report whether a spin-up period is used.
- Page 10, Line 235: Please explain the rationale for the selected parameter values. In the category-based approach, are the same spatial or temporal length scales used for all emission sectors, or are different values assigned to different sectors? Please provide the relevant details and justification.
- Page 17, Line 315: Could observations or independent concentration estimates at the different lateral boundaries be included as additional constraints? Please discuss whether information from the domain’s different inflow boundaries could help constrain the inversion.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-3221-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 272 | 119 | 30 | 421 | 30 | 20 |
- HTML: 272
- PDF: 119
- XML: 30
- Total: 421
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1