Point Centred Variography to Assess the Spatial Representativeness of Air Quality Monitoring Sites: Application to the Datasets of the FAIRMODE Intercomparison Exercise of Spatial Representativeness

Common definitions for the spatial representativeness of air quality monitoring sites are based on the evaluation of the similarity of pollutant concentrations, in which the representativeness area of a monitoring site is basically described by the set of all locations where the concentration of a pollutant does not differ from the measurements at the central point by more than a certain threshold. Classical geostatistical analysis describes the spatial correlation structure of a concentration field in terms of the variogram. In contrary, the point centred variography is based on the average of squared concentration differences observed in pairs formed between a particular central point and the set of all other points in the domain. It thereby places a monitoring station in the context of the local or regional air quality pattern. In this report we demonstrate how a mathematical inversion of the point centred variogram can provide information about the extent of the spatial representativeness area of a monitoring site. The application of this approach is tested on a set of modelling data from the city of Antwerp. This dataset contains information at a very high spatial (street level) and temporal resolution for three main pollutants (PM10, NO2 and Ozone), over the whole city. Furthermore, FAIRMODE (Forum for Air Quality Modeling in Europe) is currently concluding an intercomparison exercise on spatial representativeness methods, which is also based on sharing this same dataset.JRC.C.5-Air and Climat

Fossil CO2 emissions of all world countries - 2018 Report

The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research provides time series of CO2 emissions for all world countries from 1970 until 2017. In this report, fossil CO2 emissions are presented for the period 1990-2017 as well as the per capita and per GDP trends.JRC.C.5-Air and Climat

Climate change in a changing world: Socio-economic and technological transitions, regulatory frameworks and trends on global greenhouse gas emissions from EDGAR v.5.0

n/

European anthropogenic AFOLU emissions and their uncertainties: a review and benchmark data

Emission of greenhouse gases (GHG) and removals from land, including both anthropogenic and natural fluxes, require reliable quantification, along with estimates of their inherent uncertainties, in order to support credible mitigation action under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a state-of-the-art scientific overview of bottom-up anthropogenic emissions data from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU) in Europe. The data integrates recent AFOLU emission inventories with ecosystem data and land carbon models, covering the European Union (EU28) and summarizes GHG emissions and removals over the period 1990–2016, of relevance for UNFCCC. This compilation of bottom-up estimates of the AFOLU GHG emissions of European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGI) with those of land carbon models and observation-based estimates of large-scale GHG fluxes, aims at improving the overall estimates of the GHG balance in Europe with respect to land GHG emissions and removals. Particular effort is devoted to the estimation of uncertainty, its propagation and role in the comparison of different estimates. While NGHGI data for EU28 provides consistent quantification of uncertainty following the established IPCC guidelines, uncertainty in the estimates produced with other methods will need to account for both within model uncertainty and the spread from different model results. At EU28 level, the largest inconsistencies between estimates are mainly due to different sources of data related to human activity which result in emissions or removals taking place during a given period of time (IPCC 2006) referred here as activity data (AD) and methodologies (Tiers) used for calculating emissions/removals from AFOLU sectors. The referenced datasets related to figures are visualised at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3460311, Petrescu et al., 2019

Improving the deterministic skill of air quality ensembles

<p><strong>Abstract.</strong> Forecasts from chemical weather models are subject to uncertainties in the input data (e.g. emission inventory, initial and boundary conditions) as well as the model itself (e.g. physical parameterization, chemical mechanism). Multi-model ensemble forecasts can improve the forecast skill provided that certain mathematical conditions are fulfilled. We demonstrate through an intercomparison of two dissimilar air quality ensembles that unconditional raw forecast averaging, although generally successful, is far from optimum. One way to achieve an optimum ensemble is also presented. The basic idea is to either add optimum weights to members or constrain the ensemble to those members that meet certain conditions in time or frequency domain. The methods are evaluated against ground level observations collected from the EMEP and Airbase databases.<br><br> The two ensembles were created for the first and second phase of the Air Quality Model Evaluation International Initiative (AQMEII). Verification statistics shows that the deterministic models simulate better O<sub>3</sub> than NO<sub>2</sub> and PM<sub>10</sub>, linked to different levels of complexity in the represented processes. The ensemble mean achieves higher skill compared to each station's best deterministic model at 39 %–63 % of the sites. The skill gained from the favourable ensemble averaging has at least double the forecast skill compared to using the full ensemble. The method proved robust for the 3-monthly examined time-series if the training phase comprises 60 days. Further development of the method is discussed in the conclusion.</p&gt

The consolidated European synthesis of CO2emissions and removals for the European Union and United Kingdom : 1990-2018

Acknowledgements FAOSTAT statistics are produced and disseminated with the support of its member countries to the FAO regular budget. Philippe Ciais acknowledges the support of the European Research Council Synergy project SyG-2013-610028 IMBALANCE-P and from the ANR CLAND Convergence Institute. We acknowledge the work of the entire EDGAR group (Marilena Muntean, Diego Guizzardi, Edwin Schaaf and Jos Olivier). We acknowledge Stephen Sitch and the authors of the DGVMs TRENDY v7 ensemble models for providing us with the data. Financial support This research has been supported by the H2020 European Research Council (grant no. 776810).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Modeled deposition of nitrogen and sulfur in Europe estimated by 14 air quality model systems: evaluation, effects of changes in emissions and implications for habitat protection

The evaluation and intercomparison of air quality models is key to reducing model errors and uncertainty. The projects AQMEII3 and EURODELTA-Trends, in the framework of the Task Force on Hemispheric Transport of Air Pollutants and the Task Force on Measurements and Modelling, respectively (both task forces under the UNECE Convention on the Long Range Transport of Air Pollution, LTRAP), have brought together various regional air quality models to analyze their performance in terms of air concentrations and wet deposition, as well as to address other specific objectives. This paper jointly examines the results from both project communities by intercomparing and evaluating the deposition estimates of reduced and oxidized nitrogen (N) and sulfur (S) in Europe simulated by 14 air quality model systems for the year 2010. An accurate estimate of deposition is key to an accurate simulation of atmospheric concentrations. In addition, deposition fluxes are increasingly being used to estimate ecological impacts. It is therefore important to know by how much model results differ and how well they agree with observed values, at least when comparison with observations is possible, such as in the case of wet deposition. This study reveals a large variability between the wet deposition estimates of the models, with some performing acceptably (according to previously defined criteria) and others underestimating wet deposition rates. For dry deposition, there are also considerable differences between the model estimates. An ensemble of the models with the best performance for N wet deposition was made and used to explore the implications of N deposition in the conservation of protected European habitats. Exceedances of empirical critical loads were calculated for the most common habitats at a resolution of 100  ×  100 m2 within the Natura 2000 network, and the habitats with the largest areas showing exceedances are determined. Moreover, simulations with reduced emissions in selected source areas indicated a fairly linear relationship between reductions in emissions and changes in the deposition rates of N and S. An approximate 20 % reduction in N and S deposition in Europe is found when emissions at a global scale are reduced by the same amount. European emissions are by far the main contributor to deposition in Europe, whereas the reduction in deposition due to a decrease in emissions in North America is very small and confined to the western part of the domain. Reductions in European emissions led to substantial decreases in the protected habitat areas with critical load exceedances (halving the exceeded area for certain habitats), whereas no change was found, on average, when reducing North American emissions in terms of average values per habitat

The consolidated European synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom : 1990-2017

Reliable quantification of the sources and sinks of greenhouse gases, together with trends and uncertainties, is essential to monitoring the progress in mitigating anthropogenic emissions under the Paris Agreement. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions with consistently derived state-of-the-art bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) data sources for the European Union and UK (EU27 C UK). We integrate recent emission inventory data, ecosystem process-based model results and inverse modeling estimates over the period 1990-2017. BU and TD products are compared with European national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) reported to the UN climate convention UNFCCC secretariat in 2019. For uncertainties, we used for NGHGIs the standard deviation obtained by varying parameters of inventory calculations, reported by the member states (MSs) following the recommendations of the IPCC Guidelines. For atmospheric inversion models (TD) or other inventory datasets (BU), we defined uncertainties from the spread between different model estimates or model-specific uncertainties when reported. In comparing NGHGIs with other approaches, a key source of bias is the activities included, e.g., anthropogenic versus anthropogenic plus natural fluxes. In inversions, the separation between anthropogenic and natural emissions is sensitive to the geospatial prior distribution of emissions. Over the 2011-2015 period, which is the common denominator of data availability between all sources, the anthropogenic BU approaches are directly comparable, reporting mean emissions of 20.8 TgCH(4) yr (-1) (EDGAR v5.0) and 19.0 TgCH(4) yr(-1) (GAINS), consistent with the NGHGI estimates of 18.9 +/- 1.7 TgCH(4) yr(-1). The estimates of TD total inversions give higher emission estimates, as they also include natural emissions. Over the same period regional TD inversions with higher-resolution atmospheric transport models give a mean emission of 28.8 TgCH(4) yr(-1). Coarser-resolution global TD inversions are consistent with regional TD inversions, for global inversions with GOSAT satellite data (23.3 TgCH(4) yr(-1)) and surface network (24.4 TgCH(4) yr (-1)). The magnitude of natural peatland emissions from the JSBACH-HIMMELI model, natural rivers and lakes emissions, and geological sources together account for the gap between NGHGIs and inversions and account for 5.2 TgCH(4) yr(-1). For N2O emissions, over the 2011-2015 period, both BU approaches (EDGAR v5.0 and GAINS) give a mean value of anthropogenic emissions of 0.8 and 0.9 TgN(2)Oyr(-1), respectively, agreeing with the NGHGI data (0.9 0.6 TgN(2)Oyr(-1)). Over the same period, the average of the three total TD global and regional inversions was 1.3 +/- 0.4 and 1.3 +/- 0.1 TgN(2)Oyr(-1), respectively. The TD and BU comparison method defined in this study can be operationalized for future yearly updates for the calculation of CH4 and N2O budgets both at the EU CUK scale and at the national scale.Peer reviewe

The consolidated European synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom : 1990-2019

Funding Information: We thank Aurélie Paquirissamy, Géraud Moulas and the ARTTIC team for the great managerial support offered during the project. FAOSTAT statistics are produced and disseminated with the support of its member countries to the FAO regular budget. Annual, gap-filled and harmonized NGHGI uncertainty estimates for the EU and its member states were provided by the EU GHG inventory team (European Environment Agency and its European Topic Centre on Climate change mitigation). Most top-down inverse simulations referred to in this paper rely for the derivation of optimized flux fields on observational data provided by surface stations that are part of networks like ICOS (datasets: 10.18160/P7E9-EKEA , Integrated Non-CO Observing System, 2018a, and 10.18160/B3Q6-JKA0 , Integrated Non-CO Observing System, 2018b), AGAGE, NOAA (Obspack Globalview CH: 10.25925/20221001 , Schuldt et al., 2017), CSIRO and/or WMO GAW. We thank all station PIs and their organizations for providing these valuable datasets. We acknowledge the work of other members of the EDGAR group (Edwin Schaaf, Jos Olivier) and the outstanding scientific contribution to the VERIFY project of Peter Bergamaschi. Timo Vesala thanks ICOS-Finland, University of Helsinki. The TM5-CAMS inversions are available from https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu (last access: June 2022); Arjo Segers acknowledges support from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, implemented by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts on behalf of the European Commission (grant no. CAMS2_55). This research has been supported by the European Commission, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (VERIFY, grant no. 776810). Ronny Lauerwald received support from the CLand Convergence Institute. Prabir Patra received support from the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (grant no. JPMEERF20182002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Pierre Regnier received financial support from the H2020 project ESM2025 – Earth System Models for the Future (grant no. 101003536). David Basviken received support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (METLAKE, grant no. 725546). Greet Janssens-Maenhout received support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (CoCO, grant no. 958927). Tuula Aalto received support from the Finnish Academy (grants nos. 351311 and 345531). Sönke Zhaele received support from the ERC consolidator grant QUINCY (grant no. 647204).Peer reviewedPublisher PD