18
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Carbon dioxide and methane measurements from the Los Angeles Megacity Carbon Project – Part 1: calibration, urban enhancements, and uncertainty estimates

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          We report continuous surface observations of carbon dioxide (CO 2) and methane (CH 4) from the Los Angeles (LA) Megacity Carbon Project during 2015. We devised a calibration strategy, methods for selection of background air masses, calculation of urban enhancements, and a detailed algorithm for estimating uncertainties in urban-scale CO 2 and CH 4 measurements. These methods are essential for understanding carbon fluxes from the LA megacity and other complex urban environments globally. We estimate background mole fractions entering LA using observations from four “extra-urban” sites including two “marine” sites located south of LA in La Jolla (LJO) and offshore on San Clemente Island (SCI), one “continental” site located in Victorville (VIC), in the high desert northeast of LA, and one “continental/mid-troposphere” site located on Mount Wilson (MWO) in the San Gabriel Mountains. We find that a local marine background can be established to within ~1 ppm CO 2 and ~10 ppb CH 4 using these local measurement sites. Overall, atmospheric carbon dioxide and methane levels are highly variable across Los Angeles. “Urban” and “suburban” sites show moderate to large CO 2 and CH 4 enhancements relative to a marine background estimate. The USC (University of Southern California) site near downtown LA exhibits median hourly enhancements of ~20 ppm CO 2 and ~150 ppb CH 4 during 2015 as well as ~15 ppm CO 2 and ~80 ppb CH 4 during mid-afternoon hours (12:00–16:00 LT, local time), which is the typical period of focus for flux inversions. The estimated measurement uncertainty is typically better than 0.1 ppm CO 2 and 1 ppb CH 4 based on the repeated standard gas measurements from the LA sites during the last 2 years, similar to Andrews et al. (2014). The largest component of the measurement uncertainty is due to the single-point calibration method; however, the uncertainty in the background mole fraction is much larger than the measurement uncertainty. The background uncertainty for the marine background estimate is ~10 and ~15 % of the median mid-afternoon enhancement near downtown LA for CO 2 and CH 4, respectively. Overall, analytical and background uncertainties are small relative to the local CO 2 and CH 4 enhancements; however, our results suggest that reducing the uncertainty to less than 5 % of the median mid-afternoon enhancement will require detailed assessment of the impact of meteorology on background conditions.

          Related collections

          Most cited references66

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Statistics of atomic frequency standards

          D.W. Allan (1966)
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The growth rate and distribution of atmospheric methane

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Extension and integration of atmospheric carbon dioxide data into a globally consistent measurement record

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                101214388
                38670
                Atmos Chem Phys
                Atmos Chem Phys
                Atmospheric chemistry and physics
                1680-7316
                1680-7324
                14 November 2018
                2017
                11 April 2019
                : 17
                : 10.5194/acp-17-8313-2017
                Affiliations
                [1 ]NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA
                [2 ]University of California, Los Angeles, Joint Institute for Regional Earth System Science and Engineering, Los Angeles, CA, USA
                [3 ]National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Gaithersburg, MD, USA
                [4 ]Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
                [5 ]California Institute of Technology, Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, Pasadena, CA, USA
                [6 ]NOAA/ESRL/GMD, Boulder, CO, USA
                [7 ]CIRES, University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA
                [8 ]Earth Networks, Inc., Germantown, MD, USA
                Author notes
                [a]

                now at: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Planning and Research Division, Climate Protection Section, San Francisco, CA, USA

                [b]

                now at: University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources and Environment, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

                [c]

                now at: California State University, Northridge, Institutional Research Office, Northridge, CA, USA

                [d]

                now at: University of California, Riverside, Department of Environmental Sciences, Riverside, CA, USA

                Correspondence to: Kristal R. Verhulst ( kristal.r.verhulst@ 123456jpl.nasa.gov )
                Article
                NISTPA996738
                10.5194/acp-17-8313-2017
                6459414
                14a1c79e-f7be-4989-bf11-d5ddea076299

                This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Comments

                Comment on this article