Engineering topics
Duren, Riley M.
Publications and source records attributed to Duren, Riley M..
Improved Methane Emission Estimates Using AVIRIS-NG and an Airborne Doppler Wind Lidar
No abstract provided
New and Emerging CH4 Remote Sensing Capabilities With Imaging Spectrometers.
UNKNOWN
High spatial resolution mapping of greenhouse gases using imaging spectrometers
UNKNOWN
Visualizing anthropogenic methane plumes from the California Methane Survey
UNKNOWN
Mitigation of methane emissions in cities: How new measurements and partnerships can contribute to emissions reduction strategies
Cities generate 70% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, a fraction that is grow-ing with global urbanization. While cities play an important role in climate change mitigation, there has been little focus on reducing urban methane (CH4) emissions. Here, we develop a conceptual framework for CH 4 mitigation in cities by describing emission processes, the role of measurements, and a need for new institutional partnerships. Urban CH 4 emissions are likely to grow with expanding use of natural gas and organic waste disposal systems in growing population centers; however, we currently lack the ability to quantify this increase. We also lack systematic knowledge of the relative contribution of these distinct source sectors on emissions. We present new observations from four North American cities to demonstrate that CH4 emissions vary in magnitude and sector from city to city and hence require different mitigation strategies. Detections of fugitive emissions from these systems suggest that current mitiga- tion approaches are absent or ineffective. These findings illustrate that tackling urban CH 4 emissions will require research efforts to identify mitigation targets, develop and implement new mitigation strategies, and monitor atmospheric CH 4 levels to ensure the success of mitigation efforts. This research will require a variety of techniques to achieve these objectives and should be deployed in cities globally. In conclusion, we suggest that metropolitan scale partnerships may effectively coordinate systematic measurements and actions focused on emission reduction goals.
Los Angeles megacity: a high-resolution land–atmosphere modelling system for urban CO 2 emissions
Megacities are major sources of anthropogenic fossil fuel CO 2 (FFCO 2 ) emissions. The spatial extents of these large urban systems cover areas of 10 000 km 2 or more with complex topography and changing landscapes. We present a high-resolution land–atmosphere modelling system for urban CO 2 emissions over the Los Angeles (LA) megacity area. The Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF)-Chem model was coupled to a very high-resolution FFCO 2 emission product, Hestia-LA, to simulate atmospheric CO 2 concentrations across the LA megacity at spatial resolutions as fine as ~1 km. We evaluated multiple WRF configurations, selecting one that minimized errors in wind speed, wind direction, and boundary layer height as evaluated by its performance against meteorological data collected during the CalNex-LA campaign (May–June 2010). Our results show no significant difference between moderate-resolution (4 km) and high-resolution (1.3 km) simulations when evaluated against surface meteorological data, but the high-resolution configurations better resolved planetary boundary layer heights and vertical gradients in the horizontal mean winds. We coupled our WRF configuration with the Vulcan 2.2 (10 km resolution) and Hestia-LA (1.3 km resolution) fossil fuel CO 2 emission products to evaluate the impact of the spatial resolution of the CO 2 emission products and the meteorological transport model on the representation of spatiotemporal variability in simulated atmospheric CO 2 concentrations. We find that high spatial resolution in the fossil fuel CO 2 emissions is more important than in the atmospheric model to capture CO 2 concentration variability across the LA megacity. Finally, we present a novel approach that employs simultaneous correlations of the simulated atmospheric CO 2 fields to qualitatively evaluate the greenhouse gas measurement network over the LA megacity. Spatial correlations in the atmospheric CO 2 fields reflect the coverage of individual measurement sites when a statistically significant number of sites observe emissions from a specific source or location. We conclude that elevated atmospheric CO 2 concentrations over the LA megacity are composed of multiple fine-scale plumes rather than a single homogenous urban dome. Furthermore, we conclude that FFCO 2 emissions monitoring in the LA megacity requires FFCO 2 emissions modelling with ~1 km resolution because coarser-resolution emissions modelling tends to overestimate the observational constraints on the emissions estimates.
Definition, Capabilities, and Components of a Terrestrial Carbon Monitoring System
Research efforts for effectively and consistently monitoring terrestrial carbon are increasing in number. As such, there is a need to define carbon monitoring and how it relates to carbon cycle science and carbon management. There is also a need to identify capabilities of a carbon monitoring system and the system components needed to develop the capabilities. Capabilities that enable the effective application of a carbon monitoring system for monitoring and management purposes may include: reconciling carbon stocks and fluxes, developing consistency across spatial and temporal scales, tracking horizontal movement of carbon, attribution of emissions to originating sources, cross-sectoral accounting, uncertainty quantification, redundancy and policy relevance. Focused research is needed to integrate these capabilities for sustained estimates of carbon stocks and fluxes. Additionally, if monitoring is intended to inform management decisions, management priorities should be considered prior to development of a monitoring system.
Validation (not just verification) of Deep Space Missions
ion & Validation (V&V) is a widely recognized and critical systems engineering function. However, the often used definition 'Verification proves the design is right; validation proves it is the right design' is rather vague. And while Verification is a reasonably well standardized systems engineering process, Validation is a far more abstract concept and the rigor and scope applied to it varies widely between organizations and individuals. This is reflected in the findings in recent Mishap Reports for several NASA missions, in which shortfalls in Validation (not just Verification) were cited as root- or contributing-factors in catastrophic mission loss. Furthermore, although there is strong agreement in the community that Test is the preferred method for V&V, many people equate 'V&V' with 'Test', such that Analysis and Modeling aren't given comparable attention. Another strong motivator is a realization that the rapid growth in complexity of deep-space missions (particularly Planetary Landers and Space Observatories given their inherent unknowns) is placing greater demands on systems engineers to 'get it right' with Validation.