Engineering topics

Kivi, Rigel

Publications and source records attributed to Kivi, Rigel.

4 records

DOE OSTI2023

National CO 2 budgets (2015–2020) inferred from atmospheric CO 2 observations in support of the global stocktake

Accurate accounting of emissions and removals of CO 2 is critical for the planning and verification of emission reduction targets in support of the Paris Agreement. Here, we present a pilot dataset of country-specific net carbon exchange (NCE; fossil plus terrestrial ecosystem fluxes) and terrestrial carbon stock changes aimed at informing countries' carbon budgets. These estimates are based on “top-down” NCE outputs from the v10 Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO-2) modeling intercomparison project (MIP), wherein an ensemble of inverse modeling groups conducted standardized experiments assimilating OCO-2 column-averaged dry-air mole fraction (X CO 2 ) retrievals (ACOS v10), in situ CO 2 measurements or combinations of these data. The v10 OCO-2 MIP NCE estimates are combined with “bottom-up” estimates of fossil fuel emissions and lateral carbon fluxes to estimate changes in terrestrial carbon stocks, which are impacted by anthropogenic and natural drivers. These flux and stock change estimates are reported annually (2015–2020) as both a global 1° x 1° gridded dataset and a country-level dataset and are available for download from the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites' (CEOS) website. Across the v10 OCO-2 MIP experiments, we obtain increases in the ensemble median terrestrial carbon stocks of 3.29–4.58 Pg CO2 yr -1 (0.90–1.25 Pg C yr -1 ). This is a result of broad increases in terrestrial carbon stocks across the northern extratropics, while the tropics generally have stock losses but with considerable regional variability and differences between v10 OCO-2 MIP experiments. We discuss the state of the science for tracking emissions and removals using top-down methods, including current limitations and future developments towards top-down monitoring and verification systems.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2023

Arctic tropospheric ozone: assessment of current knowledge and model performance

As the third most important greenhouse gas (GHG) after carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and methane (CH 4 ), tropospheric ozone (O 3 ) is also an air pollutant causing damage to human health and ecosystems. This study brings together recent research on observations and modeling of tropospheric O 3 in the Arctic, a rapidly warming and sensitive environment. At different locations in the Arctic, the observed surface O 3 seasonal cycles are quite different. Coastal Arctic locations, for example, have a minimum in the springtime due to O 3 depletion events resulting from surface bromine chemistry. In contrast, other Arctic locations have a maximum in the spring. The 12 state-of-the-art models used in this study lack the surface halogen chemistry needed to simulate coastal Arctic surface O 3 depletion in the springtime; however, the multi-model median (MMM) has accurate seasonal cycles at non-coastal Arctic locations. There is a large amount of variability among models, which has been previously reported, and we show that there continues to be no convergence among models or improved accuracy in simulating tropospheric O 3 and its precursor species. The MMM underestimates Arctic surface O 3 by 5% to 15% depending on the location. The vertical distribution of tropospheric O 3 is studied from recent ozonesonde measurements and the models. The models are highly variable, simulating free-tropospheric O 3 within a range of ±50% depending on the model and the altitude. The MMM performs best, within ±8% for most locations and seasons. However, nearly all models overestimate O 3 near the tropopause (~300 hPa or ~8 km), likely due to ongoing issues with underestimating the altitude of the tropopause and excessive downward transport of stratospheric O 3 at high latitudes. For example, the MMM is biased high by about 20% at Eureka. Observed and simulated O 3 precursors (CO, NO x , and reservoir PAN) are evaluated throughout the troposphere. Models underestimate wintertime CO everywhere, likely due to a combination of underestimating CO emissions and possibly overestimating OH. Throughout the vertical profile (compared to aircraft measurements), the MMM underestimates both CO and NO x but overestimates PAN. Perhaps as a result of competing deficiencies, the MMM O 3 matches the observed O 3 reasonably well. Our findings suggest that despite model updates over the last decade, model results are as highly variable as ever and have not increased in accuracy for representing Arctic tropospheric O 3 .

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

DOE OSTI2021

Spatial distributions of X CO 2 seasonal cycle amplitude and phase over northern high-latitude regions

Satellite-based observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) provide measurements in remote regions, such as the biologically sensitive but undersampled northern high latitudes, and are progressing toward true global data coverage. Recent improvements in satellite retrievals of total column-averaged dry air mole fractions of CO 2 (X CO 2 ) from the NASA Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) have allowed for unprecedented data coverage of northern high-latitude regions, while maintaining acceptable accuracy and consistency relative to ground-based observations, and finally providing sufficient data in spring and autumn for analysis of satellite-observed X CO 2 seasonal cycles across a majority of terrestrial northern high-latitude regions. Here, we present an analysis of X CO 2 seasonal cycles calculated from OCO-2 data for temperate, boreal, and tundra regions, subdivided into 5° latitude by 20° longitude zones. We quantify the seasonal cycle amplitudes (SCAs) and the annual half drawdown day (HDD). OCO-2 SCAs are in good agreement with ground-based observations at five high-latitude sites, and OCO-2 SCAs show very close agreement with SCAs calculated for model estimates of X CO 2 from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Services (CAMS) global inversion-optimized greenhouse gas flux model v19r1 and the CarbonTracker2019 model (CT2019B). Model estimates of X CO 2 from the GEOS-Chem CO 2 simulation version 12.7.2 with underlying biospheric fluxes from CarbonTracker2019 (GC-CT2019) yield SCAs of larger magnitude and spread over a larger range than those from CAMS, CT2019B, or OCO-2; however, GC-CT2019 SCAs still exhibit a very similar spatial distribution across northern high-latitude regions to that from CAMS, CT2019B, and OCO-2. Zones in the Asian boreal forest were found to have exceptionally large SCA and early HDD, and both OCO-2 data and model estimates yield a distinct longitudinal gradient of increasing SCA from west to east across the Eurasian continent. In northern high-latitude regions, spanning latitudes from 47 to 72° N, longitudinal gradients in both SCA and HDD are at least as pronounced as latitudinal gradients, suggesting a role for global atmospheric transport patterns in defining spatial distributions of X CO2 seasonality across these regions. GEOS-Chem surface contact tracers show that the largest X CO 2 SCAs occur in areas with the greatest contact with land surfaces, integrated over 15–30d. The correlation of X CO 2 SCA with these land surface contact tracers is stronger than the correlation of X CO 2 SCA with the SCA of CO 2 fluxes or the total annual CO 2 flux within each 5° latitude by 20° longitude zone. This indicates that accumulation of terrestrial CO 2 flux during atmospheric transport is a major driver of regional variations in X CO 2 SCA.

54 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES↗

NASA NTRS2017

Validation of OCO-2 and ACOS-GOSAT using HIPPO and TCCON

Consistent validation of satellite CO2 estimates is a prerequisite for using multiple satellite CO2measurements for joint flux inversion and establishing a long-term atmospheric CO2 data record. Wevalidate recent satellite observation of OCO-2 v7 and ACOS-GOSAT v7.3 using similar analysis as previouswork (Kulawik et al. (2016) and Frankenberg et al. (2106)) through comparisons to the HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO) and the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) to estimate biasesand errors affecting the understanding of carbon cycle science. CarbonTracker RT is also compared tothe validation data, and additionally used to evaluate the mismatch between the HIPPO observationtimeframe and the OCO-2 record, which are offset by 3-7 years. Some key metrics that are validatedinclude the seasonal cycle phase and amplitude, latitudinal gradient by season, regional biases, anderrors with respect to averaging.

Kulawik, Susan S.↗