ALBERT

Description: The ClimaDat station at Gredos (GIC3) has been continuously measuring atmospheric (dry air) mixing ratios of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), as well as meteorological parameters, since November 2012. In this study we investigate the atmospheric variability of CH4 mixing ratios between 2013 and 2015 at GIC3 with the help of co-located observations of 222Rn concentrations, modelled 222Rn fluxes and modelled planetary boundary layer heights (PBLHs). Both daily and seasonal changes in atmospheric CH4 can be better understood with the help of atmospheric concentrations of 222Rn (and the corresponding fluxes). On a daily timescale, the variation in the PBLH is the main driver for 222Rn and CH4 variability while, on monthly timescales, their atmospheric variability seems to depend on emission changes. To understand (changing) CH4 emissions, nocturnal fluxes of CH4 were estimated using two methods: the radon tracer method (RTM) and a method based on the EDGARv4.2 bottom-up emission inventory, both using FLEXPARTv9.0.2 footprints. The mean value of RTM-based methane fluxes (FR_CH4) is 0.11 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 with a standard deviation of 0.09 or 0.29 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 with a standard deviation of 0.23 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 when using a rescaled 222Rn map (FR_CH4_rescale). For our observational period, the mean value of methane fluxes based on the bottom-up inventory (FE_CH4) is 0.33 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 with a standard deviation of 0.08 mg CH4 m−2 h−1. Monthly CH4 fluxes based on RTM (both FR_CH4 and FR_CH4_rescale) show a seasonality which is not observed for monthly FE_CH4 fluxes. During January–May, RTM-based CH4 fluxes present mean values 25 % lower than during June–December. This seasonal increase in methane fluxes calculated by RTM for the GIC3 area appears to coincide with the arrival of transhumant livestock at GIC3 in the second half of the year.

Description: Atmospheric concentrations of the two main greenhouse gases (GHGs), carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), are continuously measured since November 2012 at the Spanish rural station of Gredos (GIC3), within the climate network ClimaDat, together with atmospheric radon (222Rn) tracer and meteorological parameters. The atmospheric variability of CH4 concentrations measured from 2013 to 2015 at GIC3 has been analyzed in this study. It is interpreted in relation to the variability of measured 222Rn concentrations, modelled 222Rn fluxes and modelled heights of the planetary boundary layer (PBLH) in the same period. In addition, nocturnal fluxes of CH4 were estimated using two methods: the Radon Tracer Method (RTM) and one based on the EDGARv4.2 bottom-up emission inventory. Both previous methods have been applied using the same footprints, calculated with the atmospheric transport model FLEXPARTv6.2. Results show that daily and seasonal changes in atmospheric concentrations of 222Rn (and the corresponding fluxes) can help to understand the atmospheric CH4 variability. On daily basis, the variation in the PBLH mainly drives changes in 222Rn and CH4 concentrations while, on monthly basis, their atmospheric variability seems to depend on changes in their emissions. The median value of RTM based methane fluxes (FR_CH4) is 0.17 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 with an absolute deviation of 0.08 mg CH4 m−2 h−1. Median methane fluxes based on bottom-up inventory (FE_CH4) is of 0.32 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 with an absolute deviation of 0.06 mg CH4 m−2 h−1. Monthly FR_CH4 flux shows a seasonality which is not observed in the monthly FE_CH4 flux. During January–May FR_CH4 fluxes present a median value of 0.08 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 with an absolute deviation of 0.05 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 and a median value of 0.19 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 with an absolute deviation of 0.06 mg CH4 m−2 h−1 during June–December. This seasonal doubling of the median methane fluxes calculated by RTM at the GIC3 area seems to be mainly related to the alternate presence of transhumant livestock in the GIC3 area. The results obtained in this study highlight the benefit of applying independent RTM to improve the seasonality of the emission factors from bottom-up inventories.

Description: As most of the population lives in urban environments, the simulation of the urban climate has become a key problem in the framework of the climate change impact assessment. However, the high computational power required by high-resolution (sub-kilometre) fully coupled land–atmosphere simulations using urban canopy parameterisations is a severe limitation. Here we present a study on the performance of UrbClim, an urban boundary layer model designed to be several orders of magnitude faster than a full-fledged mesoscale model. The simulations are evaluated with station data and land surface temperature observations from satellites, focusing on the urban heat island (UHI). To explore the advantages of using a simple model like UrbClim, the results are compared with a simulation carried out with a state-of-the-art mesoscale model, the Weather Research and Forecasting Model, which includes an urban canopy model. This comparison is performed with driving data from ERA-Interim reanalysis (70 km). In addition, the effect of using driving data from a higher-resolution forecast model (15 km) is explored in the case of UrbClim. The results show that the performance of reproducing the average UHI in the simple model is generally comparable to the one in the mesoscale model when driven with reanalysis data (70 km). However, the simple model needs higher-resolution data from the forecast model (15 km) to correctly reproduce the variability of the UHI at a daily scale, which is related to the wind speed. This lack of accuracy in reproducing the wind speed, especially the sea-breeze daily cycle, which is strong in Barcelona, also causes a warm bias in the reanalysis driven UrbClim run. We conclude that medium-complexity models as UrbClim are a suitable tool to simulate the urban climate, but that they are sensitive to the ability of the input data to represent the local wind regime. UrbClim is a well suited model for impact and adaptation studies at city scale without high computing requirements, but does not replace the need for mesoscale atmospheric models when the focus is on the two-way interactions between the city and the atmosphere.