Reconciling the differences between a bottom-up and inverse-estimated FFCO2 emissions estimate in a large US urban area

The INFLUX experiment has taken multiple approaches to estimate the carbon dioxide (CO2) flux in a domain centered on the city of Indianapolis, Indiana. One approach, Hestia, uses a bottom-up technique relying on a mixture of activity data, fuel statistics, direct flux measurement and modeling algor...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kevin R. Gurney, Jianming Liang, Risa Patarasuk, Darragh O'Keeffe, Jianhua Huang, Maya Hutchins, Thomas Lauvaux, Jocelyn C. Turnbull, Paul B. Shepson
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BioOne 2017-08-01
Series:Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.elementascience.org/articles/137
id doaj-9e9a85106fea40f683bd7fe66d75cf0e
record_format Article
spelling doaj-9e9a85106fea40f683bd7fe66d75cf0e2020-11-24T21:29:09ZengBioOneElementa: Science of the Anthropocene2325-10262017-08-01510.1525/elementa.137186Reconciling the differences between a bottom-up and inverse-estimated FFCO2 emissions estimate in a large US urban areaKevin R. Gurney0Jianming Liang1Risa Patarasuk2Darragh O'Keeffe3Jianhua Huang4Maya Hutchins5Thomas Lauvaux6Jocelyn C. Turnbull7Paul B. Shepson8Arizona State University, Tempe, ArizonaArizona State University, Tempe, ArizonaArizona State University, Tempe, ArizonaArizona State University, Tempe, ArizonaArizona State University, Tempe, ArizonaArizona State University, Tempe, ArizonaDepartment of Meteorology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PennsylvaniaGNS Science, Rafter Radiocarbon Laboratory, Lower Hutt, NZ; and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/University of Colorado, Boulder, ColoradoPurdue University, West Lafayette, IndianaThe INFLUX experiment has taken multiple approaches to estimate the carbon dioxide (CO2) flux in a domain centered on the city of Indianapolis, Indiana. One approach, Hestia, uses a bottom-up technique relying on a mixture of activity data, fuel statistics, direct flux measurement and modeling algorithms. A second uses a Bayesian atmospheric inverse approach constrained by atmospheric CO2 measurements and the Hestia emissions estimate as a prior CO2 flux. The difference in the central estimate of the two approaches comes to 0.94 MtC (an 18.7% difference) over the eight-month period between September 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013, a statistically significant difference at the 2-sigma level. Here we explore possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy in an attempt to reconcile the flux estimates. We focus on two broad categories: 1) biases in the largest of bottom-up flux contributions and 2) missing CO2 sources. Though there is some evidence for small biases in the Hestia fossil fuel carbon dioxide (FFCO2) flux estimate as an explanation for the calculated difference, we find more support for missing CO2 fluxes, with biological respiration the largest of these. Incorporation of these differences bring the Hestia bottom-up and the INFLUX inversion flux estimates into statistical agreement and are additionally consistent with wintertime measurements of atmospheric 14CO2. We conclude that comparison of bottom-up and top-down approaches must consider all flux contributions and highlight the important contribution to urban carbon budgets of animal and biotic respiration. Incorporation of missing CO2 fluxes reconciles the bottom-up and inverse-based approach in the INFLUX domain.https://www.elementascience.org/articles/137carbon footprintcarbon fluxfossil fuel CO2
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Kevin R. Gurney
Jianming Liang
Risa Patarasuk
Darragh O'Keeffe
Jianhua Huang
Maya Hutchins
Thomas Lauvaux
Jocelyn C. Turnbull
Paul B. Shepson
spellingShingle Kevin R. Gurney
Jianming Liang
Risa Patarasuk
Darragh O'Keeffe
Jianhua Huang
Maya Hutchins
Thomas Lauvaux
Jocelyn C. Turnbull
Paul B. Shepson
Reconciling the differences between a bottom-up and inverse-estimated FFCO2 emissions estimate in a large US urban area
Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
carbon footprint
carbon flux
fossil fuel CO2
author_facet Kevin R. Gurney
Jianming Liang
Risa Patarasuk
Darragh O'Keeffe
Jianhua Huang
Maya Hutchins
Thomas Lauvaux
Jocelyn C. Turnbull
Paul B. Shepson
author_sort Kevin R. Gurney
title Reconciling the differences between a bottom-up and inverse-estimated FFCO2 emissions estimate in a large US urban area
title_short Reconciling the differences between a bottom-up and inverse-estimated FFCO2 emissions estimate in a large US urban area
title_full Reconciling the differences between a bottom-up and inverse-estimated FFCO2 emissions estimate in a large US urban area
title_fullStr Reconciling the differences between a bottom-up and inverse-estimated FFCO2 emissions estimate in a large US urban area
title_full_unstemmed Reconciling the differences between a bottom-up and inverse-estimated FFCO2 emissions estimate in a large US urban area
title_sort reconciling the differences between a bottom-up and inverse-estimated ffco2 emissions estimate in a large us urban area
publisher BioOne
series Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene
issn 2325-1026
publishDate 2017-08-01
description The INFLUX experiment has taken multiple approaches to estimate the carbon dioxide (CO2) flux in a domain centered on the city of Indianapolis, Indiana. One approach, Hestia, uses a bottom-up technique relying on a mixture of activity data, fuel statistics, direct flux measurement and modeling algorithms. A second uses a Bayesian atmospheric inverse approach constrained by atmospheric CO2 measurements and the Hestia emissions estimate as a prior CO2 flux. The difference in the central estimate of the two approaches comes to 0.94 MtC (an 18.7% difference) over the eight-month period between September 1, 2012 and April 30, 2013, a statistically significant difference at the 2-sigma level. Here we explore possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy in an attempt to reconcile the flux estimates. We focus on two broad categories: 1) biases in the largest of bottom-up flux contributions and 2) missing CO2 sources. Though there is some evidence for small biases in the Hestia fossil fuel carbon dioxide (FFCO2) flux estimate as an explanation for the calculated difference, we find more support for missing CO2 fluxes, with biological respiration the largest of these. Incorporation of these differences bring the Hestia bottom-up and the INFLUX inversion flux estimates into statistical agreement and are additionally consistent with wintertime measurements of atmospheric 14CO2. We conclude that comparison of bottom-up and top-down approaches must consider all flux contributions and highlight the important contribution to urban carbon budgets of animal and biotic respiration. Incorporation of missing CO2 fluxes reconciles the bottom-up and inverse-based approach in the INFLUX domain.
topic carbon footprint
carbon flux
fossil fuel CO2
url https://www.elementascience.org/articles/137
work_keys_str_mv AT kevinrgurney reconcilingthedifferencesbetweenabottomupandinverseestimatedffco2emissionsestimateinalargeusurbanarea
AT jianmingliang reconcilingthedifferencesbetweenabottomupandinverseestimatedffco2emissionsestimateinalargeusurbanarea
AT risapatarasuk reconcilingthedifferencesbetweenabottomupandinverseestimatedffco2emissionsestimateinalargeusurbanarea
AT darraghokeeffe reconcilingthedifferencesbetweenabottomupandinverseestimatedffco2emissionsestimateinalargeusurbanarea
AT jianhuahuang reconcilingthedifferencesbetweenabottomupandinverseestimatedffco2emissionsestimateinalargeusurbanarea
AT mayahutchins reconcilingthedifferencesbetweenabottomupandinverseestimatedffco2emissionsestimateinalargeusurbanarea
AT thomaslauvaux reconcilingthedifferencesbetweenabottomupandinverseestimatedffco2emissionsestimateinalargeusurbanarea
AT jocelyncturnbull reconcilingthedifferencesbetweenabottomupandinverseestimatedffco2emissionsestimateinalargeusurbanarea
AT paulbshepson reconcilingthedifferencesbetweenabottomupandinverseestimatedffco2emissionsestimateinalargeusurbanarea
_version_ 1725967119825240064