Simulations of atmospheric methane for Cape Grim, Tasmania, to constrain southeastern Australian methane emissions

• Main Authors: Z. M. Loh, R. M. Law, K. D. Haynes, P. B. Krummel, L. P. Steele, P. J. Fraser, S. D. Chambers, A. G. Williams
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Copernicus Publications 2015-01-01
• Series: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
• Online Access: http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/305/2015/acp-15-305-2015.pdf

This study uses two climate models and six scenarios of prescribed methane emissions to compare modelled and observed atmospheric methane between 1994 and 2007, for Cape Grim, Australia (40.7° S, 144.7° E). The model simulations follow the TransCom-CH₄ protocol and use the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) and the CSIRO Conformal-Cubic Atmospheric Model (CCAM). Radon is also simulated and used to reduce the impact of transport differences between the models and observations. Comparisons are made for air samples that have traversed the Australian continent. All six emission scenarios give modelled concentrations that are broadly consistent with those observed. There are three notable mismatches, however. Firstly, scenarios that incorporate interannually varying biomass burning emissions produce anomalously high methane concentrations at Cape Grim at times of large fire events in southeastern Australia, most likely due to the fire methane emissions being unrealistically input into the lowest model level. Secondly, scenarios with wetland methane emissions in the austral winter overestimate methane concentrations at Cape Grim during wintertime while scenarios without winter wetland emissions perform better. Finally, all scenarios fail to represent a~methane source in austral spring implied by the observations. It is possible that the timing of wetland emissions in the scenarios is incorrect with recent satellite measurements suggesting an austral spring (September–October–November), rather than winter, maximum for wetland emissions.