Advertisement

Issues in Establishing In Situ Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Monitoring Networks in Europe and in Regions of Interest to Europe

  • Euan Nisbet
  • Phillip O’Brien
  • C. Mary R. Fowler
  • Aodhagan Roddy
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 203)
The atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases can be measured in situ to great precision. However, can the emission and uptake fluxes of these greenhouse gases be inferred from these measurements? Just as a wolf sniffs the wind, so sources of emissions can be measured at every scale from local to global and then quantified by modelling. However, as monitoring equipment is usually static, measurements only apply to air masses which have passed through the station. Several problems emerge:
  • Emission sources can be numerous and hard to distinguish. Seasonality may be muted. Thus, very high standards of precision are needed at the in situ stations accompanied by very careful inter-comparison between stations.

  • At the risk of pushing the wolf analogy too far, pack hunters have advantages over solitary predators. A network of strategically placed in situ sampling stations can monitor and assess emissions within a region far more effectively than a whole series of independent stations acting alone.

In building an effective network of complementary in situ monitoring stations, the first problem is to ensure that the data from all the stations are inter-compared. This is not easy even for a single integrated network, but has been achieved by a multinational network in Europe with careful round-robin programmes (e.g. Meth-MonitEUr 2005 for methane).

Keywords

Southern Ocean Methane Emission Emission Inventory Drake Passage Free Troposphere 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baggott, S.L., Brown, L., Milne, R., Murrells, T.P., Passant, N., Thistlethwaite, G. and Watterson, J.D., 2005. UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990-2003. AEA Technology/ Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. ISBN 0-9547136-5-6.Google Scholar
  2. Biraud, S., Ciais, P., Ramonet, M., Simmonds, P., Kazan, V., Monfray, P., O’Doherty, S., Spain, T.G. and Jennings, S.G., 2000. European greenhouse gas emissions estimated from continuous atmospheric measurements and Radon 222 at Mace Head. J. Geophys. Res., 105, 1351-1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Biraud, S., Ciais, P., Ramonet, M., Simmonds, P., Kazan, V., Monfray, P., O’Doherty, S., Spain, T.G. and Jennings, S.G., 2002. Sources of Carbon Dioxide, Methane, Nitrous Oxide, and Chloroform over Ireland inferred from Radon 222 and Radon 220 at Mace Head. Tellus B, 54, 41-60.Google Scholar
  4. Buckingham, C., Clewly, L., Hutchinson, D., Sadler, L. and Shah, S., 1998. London Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. London Research Centre. Draxler, R.R., 1992. Hybrid single-particle Lagrangian integrated trajectories (HY-SPLIT): Version 3.0—User’s guide and model description. NOAA Tech. Memo. ERL ARL-195, 26 pp. and Appendices. [Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161].Google Scholar
  5. Draxler, R.R. and Rolph, G.D., 2003. HYSPLIT (Hybrid Single-Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory) Model access via NOAA ARL READY Website (http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html). NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD.
  6. Fisher, R., Lowry, D., Wilkin, O., Sriskantharajah, S. and Nisbet, E.G., 2006. High precision, automated stable isotopic analysis of atmospheric methane and carbon dioxide using continu-ous-flow isotope ratio mass spectrometry, Rapid Communications in Mass Spectrometry, 20, 200-208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frankenberg, C., Meirink, J.F., Bergamaschi, P., Goede, A.P.H., Heimann, M., Koerner, S., Platt, U., van Weele, M. and Wagner, T., 2006. Satellite cartography of atmospheric methane from SCIAMACHY on board ENVISAT: Analysis of the years 2003 and 2004. J. Geophys. Res., 111, D07303, doi:10.1029/2005JD006235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hansen, J.E. and Sato, M., 2001. Trends of measured climate forcing agents. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, 98, 14778-14783, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.261553698
  9. Keeling, C.D. and Whorf, T.P., 2005. Atmospheric CO2 records from sites in the SIO air sampling network. In Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn., U.S.A.Google Scholar
  10. Le Quere, C., Rödenbeck, C., Buitenhuis, E.T., Conway, T.J., Ray Langenfelds, R., Gomez A., Labuschagne C., Ramonet, M., Nakazawa T., Metzl, M., Gillett, N. and Heimann, M., 2007. Saturation of the Southern Ocean CO2 sink due to recent climate change. Science, 316, 1735-1738. doi:10.1126/science 1136188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Levin, I., Glatzel-Mattheier, H., Marik, T., Cuntz, M., Schmidt, M. and Worthy, D.E., 1999. Verification of German methane emission inventories and their recent changes based on atmospheric observations. J. Geophys. Res., 104, D3, 3447-3456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lowe, D.C., Brenninkmeijer, C.A.M., Brailsford, G.W., Lassey, K.R., Gomez, A.J. and Nisbet, E.G., 1994. Concentration and 13C records of atmospheric methane in New Zealand and Antarctica: Evidence for changes in methane sources. J. Geophys. Res., 99, 16913-16925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lowry, D., Holmes, C.W., Rata, N.D., Nisbet, E.G. and O’Brien, P., 2001. London Methane Emissions: Use of Diurnal Changes in Concentration and δ13C to Identify Sources and Verify Inventories. J. Geophys. Res., 106 (D), 7427-7448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meth-MonitEUr 2005. Final Report Section 6. Methane Monitoring in the European Union and Russia. European Union. http://www.gl.rhul.ac.uk/METH/MonitEUr/
  15. Nisbet, E.G., 2005. Emissions control needs atmospheric verification. Nature, 433, 683.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nisbet, E.G., 2007. Cinderella science. Nature, 450, 789-790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rolph, G.D., 2003. Real-time Environmental Applications and Display system (READY) Website (http://www.arl.noaa.gov/ready/hysplit4.html). NOAA Air Resources Laboratory, Silver Spring, MD.
  18. Ryall, D.B., Derwent, R.G., Manning, A.J., Simmonds, P.G. and O’Doherty, S., 2001. Estimating source strengths of European emissions of trace gases from observations at Mace Head. Atmos. Environ., 35, 2507-2523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Worthy, D. and Huang, L., 2005. 12th WMO/IAEA meeting of experts on carbon dioxide concen-tration and related tracers measurement techniques. WMO Global Atmosphere Watch. Geneva: World Meteorological Organisation WMO TD 1275 (GAW 161).Google Scholar
  20. Zinchenko, A.V., Paramonova,N.N., Privalov,V.I. and Reshetnikov, A.I., 2002. Estimation of methane emissions in the St. Petersburg rsegion: An atmospheric nocturnal boundary layer budget approach. J. Geophys. Res., 107, D20, 4416, doi:10.1029/2001JD001369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Euan Nisbet
    • 1
  • Phillip O’Brien
    • 2
  • C. Mary R. Fowler
    • 2
  • Aodhagan Roddy
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of GeologyRoyal Holloway, University of LondonEghamUK
  2. 2.Department of GeologyRoyal HollowayEghamUK
  3. 3.Department of PhysicsGalway UniversityGalwayIreland

Personalised recommendations