Comparisons of vertical greenhouse gas profiles from an intensive AirCore campaign
•
0 likes•41 views
This document discusses comparisons of vertical profile measurements of greenhouse gases from an intensive campaign using AirCore samplers at Sodankylä, Finland. It finds that AirCore is a cost-effective tool for stratospheric measurements, with uncertainties of 0.15-0.2 ppm for CO2 and 4-7 ppb for CO. Differences between AirCore profiles were mostly within these uncertainties, though tubing coatings could cause larger CO2 differences. Altitude registration uncertainty was typically around 2 hPa. Future work includes a campaign in Kiruna, Sweden to further improve accuracy of CO measurements and altitude registration.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Comparisons of vertical greenhouse gas profiles from an intensive AirCore campaign
Similar to Comparisons of vertical greenhouse gas profiles from an intensive AirCore campaign (20)
More from Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS)
More from Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Comparisons of vertical greenhouse gas profiles from an intensive AirCore campaign
- 1. Comparisons of AirCore vertical profiles of greenhouse gases from an intensive RINGO campaign at Sodankylä, Finland Huilin Chen1,Joram Hooghiem1, Rebecca Brownlow1, Rigel Kivi2, Pauli Heikkinen2, Markus Leuenberger3, Peter Nyfeler3, Michel Ramonet4, Morgan Lopez4, Thomas Laemmel4, Andreas Engel5, Thomas Wagenhaeuser5, Emma Elvidge6, Johannes Laube6, Bianca Baier7,Colm Sweeney7,Francois Danis8, Cyril Crevoisier8 1RUG, 2FMI, 3UBern, 4LSCE, 5GUF, 6UEA, 7NOAA, 8LMD
- 2. Towards vertical profile measurements within ICOS ICOS stations • Atmosphere (towers & mountain or coastal stations) • Complementary to ICOS Atmosphere • Bridging remote sensing with the in-situ network (Tukiainen et al., 2016; Zhou et al. 2019; Sha et al., 2020) • Validation of model simulations Vertical Profiles 2
- 3. RINGO (Readiness of ICOS for necessities of integrated global observations) Task leader: RUG Participants: GUF, FMI, LSCE, UBern, BIRA, UBremen The aim is to develop the readiness of in situ vertical profile measurements using AirCore at ICOS stations & vertical TCCON profile measurements of CH4. Tasks: 1. High-accuracy in-situ vertical profile measurements 2. Demonstration of vertical profile retrievals of CH4 from the ground-based TCCON network, at a few stations (e.g., Reunion, Sodankyla and Trainou) Task 3.1: Exploration to Apply New Technologies for Vertical Profiles • Not aircraft due to its relatively high operational costs and limited vertical range • Complimentary to commercial airliner programs (CONTRAIL and IAGOS) • Also opportunities for stratospheric research 3
- 4. Stratospheric research requires high-accuracy observations 0 50 100 CO (ppb) 12 13 14 15 Altitude (km) (a) AC 04-Sep AC 05-Sep AC 06-Sep AC 07-Sep LISA 04-Sep LISA 05-Sep LISA 06-Sep 402 404 406 CO2 (ppm) (b) Altitude(km) 4Hooghiem et al., ACPD, 2020 AirCore obs. of “the mega pyro-cumulonimbus (pyroCb)” event in British Columbia on Aug. 12 2017 403.5 404.0 404.5 405.0 405.5 CO2 (ppm) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 CO (ppb) , OH-corrected, slope: 62.0 , original, slope: 40.0 , OH-corrected, slope: 54.0 , original, slope: 34.0 403.5 404.0 404.5 405.0 405.5 CO2 (ppm) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 CO (ppb) 04/Sep, OH-corrected, slope: 62.0 04/Sep, original, slope: 40.0 05/Sep, OH-corrected, slope: 54.0 05/Sep, original, slope: 34.0 CO(ppb) The ratio of ∆CO/ ∆CO2 Engel et al., 2017 AirCore obs. for calculating stratospheric mean ages • Accurate observations • Multiple tracers • Long-term monitoring What’s required:
- 5. Validation strategies • Accuracy of mole fractions - e.g. CO2:0.1 ppm, CO: 2 ppb on the WMO scale • Accuracy of the altitude registration What needs to be validated? S 1. AirCore vs. LISA sampler (RUG) S 2. AirCore vs. AirCore (NOAA Twins) S 3. Altitude marker (GUF) Strategies • Sodankylä 2018 • Trainou 2019 AirCore Campaigns 5
- 6. RINGO AirCore Comparison Campaigns Day 1 (Jun 18) Day 2 (Jun 19) Day 3 (Jun 20) Day 4 (Jun 21) Day 5 (Jun 25) Day 6 (Jun 26) Day 7 (Jun 29) 1 RUG/FMI 2 RUG/FMI 3 RUG /FMI 4 LSCE/LMD 6 RUG/FMI 9 GUF 10 LISA Bern LISA LSCE/LMD NOAA GUF Bern LSCE/LMD NOAA UEA Bern Bern Bern-light 5 GUF 7 LISA UEA Bern 8 Bern Institutions AirCore Tubing Flights 1. RUG/FMI 40 m 1/4” O.D. + 60 m 1/8” O.D. 4 2. LSCE/LMD 23 m 8 mm O.D. + 46 m 4 mm O.D. 3 (no drying) 3. GUF 20 m 8 mm O.D. + 40 m 4mm O.D. + 40 m 2 mm O.D. 3 4. UBERN 105m 3.4 mm O.D. 7 5. NOAA 100 m 1/8” O.D. x 2 4 6. UEA 8.5 m 1/2” O.D. + 63 or 85 m 1/8” O.D. 2 7. RUG LISA (4 bags) 3 Sum All analyzed on Picarro, primarily G2401 23 AC + 3 LISA RINGO aims to develop the readiness of in situ vertical profile measurements using AirCore at ICOS stations & vertical TCCON profile measurements of CH4. • 1st campaign Sodankylä 2018 • 2nd campaign Trainou 2019
- 7. CO2 Mean column differences • 0 – 0.32 ppm • UEA tropospheric part on June 20 ½ in. diameter, coated Due to different spatial resolution • UEA stratospheric part on June 20: Tubing no coating • GUF on June 25, possibly smearing during analysis Larger differences 7
- 8. Comparison of CO2 profiles 13 CO2 and CO profiles from RUGFMI, NOAA, GUF, LSCELMD Small variations in the stratosphere • CO2 above 20 km • In the CH4 domain 1300 – 1700 ppb (16 – 20 km) Large variations in the troposphere • Surface emissions • Transport 8
- 9. Uncertainty of CO2 mole fraction observations In the CH4 domain 1-Sigma: 0.19 ppm Above 20 km 1-Sigma: 0.15 ppm Round-Robin cylinder comparison 1-Sigma: 0.10 ppm VS. With vs. without drying the air sample above 16 km • 0.08 ± 0.18 ppm above 20 km • 0.15 ± 0.11 ppm between 16 and 20 km 9 Above 20 km 16 – 20 km
- 10. Uncertainty of CO mole fraction observations Troposphere 5 – 8 km 1-Sigma: 4 ppb Stratosphere 13 – 17 km 1-Sigma: 7 ppb Round-Robin cylinder comparison 1-Sigma: 2.5 ppb VS. 10
- 11. Uncertainties in the altitude registration 11 Flight dates AirCore Comp. Mean strat. profile diff. (> 13 km) Vertical shifts Mean strat. profile diff. after vertical shifts CH4 (ppb) CO2 (ppm) CO (ppb) P (hPa) CH4 (ppb) CO2 (ppm) CO (ppb) 20180618 LSCELMD - RUGFMI -9.6 -0.02 -7.8 -2 -0.5 0.11 -8 20180619 NOAA009- RUGFMI 10.4 0.15 -19.7 0 10.4 0.15 -19.7 NOAA010- RUGFMI 9.0 0.2 -19.1 1 4.4 0.13 -19.4 RUGFMI - RUGLISA -31.1 -1.30 27.8 -2 -26.7 -1.27 29.5 20190620 LSCELMD- RUGFMI 11.5 0.32 12.1 2 3.4 0.22 16.8 UEA - RUGFMI 10 -2.33 12.1 3 -4.3 -2.53 11.6 20190621 LSCELMD- NOAA004 37.5 0.37 - 10 -3.9 -0.16 - GUF- NOAA004 50.8 0.35 - 13 0.4 -0.28 - 20190625 GUF-RUGFMI -0.3 -0.75 -16.4 -2 7.3 -0.69 -17.1 Median vertical shift: 2 hPa
- 12. Conclusions & Future work • AirCore cost-effective tools for stratospheric greenhouse gas and related tracer measurements • AirCore mole fraction and altitude registration uncertainties - Mole faction CO2 0.15 – 0.20 ppm, CO 4 – 7 ppb - No tubing surface coating can cause large differences (up to ~ 5 ppm) for CO2 - Dry vs. no dry insignificant differences for stratospheric CO2 above 16 km - Altitude registration uncertainty median ~2 hPa • Hemera campaign with a large balloon in Kiruna (68N, 21E) summer 2021 (Whole air sampler, Regular AirCores, Mega-AirCore, Mega-LISA) - Improving CO mole fraction accuracy - Improving altitude registration accuracy