Biomass burning emissions

GFED2

21-Jan-2009

The data for both the GFED2 monthly and 8-day biomass emissions are now available through 2007:

Monthly data (in bpch format):

ftp ftp.as.harvard.edu
cd pub/geos-chem/data/GEOS_1x1/GFED2_200601/2007

8-day data (in bpch format):

ftp ftp.as.harvard.edu
cd pub/geos-chem/data/GEOS_1x1/GFED2_8day_200712/2007/

The 8-day emissions are not in the standard code as of Jan 21, 2009, but will be included in v8-01-04.

Also, until v8-01-04 is released, you must make a minor update in your code in gfed2_biomass_mod.f to make 2007 the last year of data:

     ! 2007 is currently the last year of available data
     IF ( YYYY > 2007 ) THEN
        YYYY = 2007
        WRITE( 6, 120 ) 
120     FORMAT( 'YEAR > 2007; Using GFED2 biomass for 2007!' )
     ENDIF

--Bob Y. 15:05, 21 January 2009 (EST)

04-Apr-2008

Here is an update on the status of the GFED2 8-day emissions:

Ray Nassar (ray@io.as.harvard.edu) wrote:

The [GFED2 8-day emissions] code is working and I am using it for my work. Overall, the results I get for CO and ozone are very similar to my monthly GFED runs but this changes if one focuses on a specific region over with a short time scale.

{Here are} ... Some of {my comparisons}. This is by no means a complete analysis but more of an initial assessment.

In my opinion, the move to 8-day emissions is a definite improvement, although as I said, the differences are fairly localized and really only matter for time scales shorter than one month.

NOTE: As of April 2008, the GFED2 8-day emissions have not been added to the standard GEOS-Chem code but will go into a future version (perhaps v8-01-02 or v8-01-03). Please contact Ray Nassar if you wish to use the GFED2 8-day emissions in the meantime.

--Bmy 10:28, 4 April 2008 (EDT)

02-Jan-2008

The fix described below for making 2006 the last available year of GFED2 data has now been implemented into GEOS-Chem v8-01-01. This will be released sometime in January 2008.

GFED2 8-day emissions are in the pipeline but have not yet been tested in any version of GEOS-Chem.

25-Sep-2007

The previous benchmarked version (GEOS-Chem v7-04-12) is able to compute GFED2 biomass emissions from 1997-2005.

We have recently obtained the GFED2 C emissions data for the year 2006. In order to use the 2006 C emissions data to compute 2006 biomass emissions, then you must modify the following lines in the file "gfed2_biomass_mod.f":

       ! 2005 is currently the last year of available data
       IF ( YYYY > 2005 ) THEN
          YYYY = 2005
          WRITE( 6, 120 ) 
 120      FORMAT( 'YEAR > 2005; Using GFED2 biomass for 2005!' )
       ENDIF

to

     ! 2006 is currently the last year of available data
     IF ( YYYY > 2006 ) THEN
        YYYY = 2006
        WRITE( 6, 120 ) 
 120    FORMAT( 'YEAR > 2006; Using GFED2 biomass for 2006!' )
     ENDIF

NOTE: This fix has been added into GEOS-Chem v8-01-01. For the time being, if you need to use the 2006 GFED2 emissions in an earlier version than v8-01-01, then please apply the above changes to your research code.

FLAMBE biomass emissions

NOTE: At this time FLAMBE has not been implemented into the mainline standard GEOS-Chem, but it has been used for the NRT-ARCTAS codes. Therefore probably only a small fraction of GEOS-Chem users will be concerned with these emissions at this time.

Jenny Fisher (jafisher@fas.harvard.edu) wrote:

Sorry to revisit the old FLAMBE issues, but we are seeing some strange results in the fire emissions, and I am trying to verify with Ed Hyer that we are processing the data correctly.

To get a handle on how we are processing the file, I have been looking in Philippe's directory ~phs/IDL/dvpt/flambe/

I took a look at some of the data files in the data/ directory in there. In the column that corresponds to carbon emissions (column 11, or 10 in IDL accounting), I see values that range from 4.95e4 to 765e4. Hyer tells me that in his version of the files, these range from 4.95 to 7650 (i.e. 4 orders of magnitude different). We are assuming these emissions are in g/m2, which they clearly aren't at our values.

Do either of you know if I am looking at old files, and if what we have looks more like what he has? Or are we processing things 4 orders of magnitude too large?? Or, are we assuming a different unit on the emissions when we actually process them? I can't seem to find raw flambe data files anywhere besides Philippe's development directory...

Philippe Le Sager (plesager@seas.harvard.edu) wrote:

We had a couple of problems with the data. The one that gave me headache was the difference between forecast and analysis data, which can be mixed in some files. There was the issue of double counting fires seen by both GOES and MODIS, and we found a problem with unit. It was Kg instead of g as advertised in the ppt [that was given to us] (the only documentation for the data). Ed did correct the files and back processed the data on its server.

I have a "new" directory in my test data. You probably look at the old set of data. The new one is in the "new" subdirectory:

   /home/phs/IDL/dvpt/flambe/data/new/

You can also still get the data at the following website:

   http://www.nrlmry.navy.mil/aerosol_web/arctas_flambe/data_hourly/

Finally here are some totals we check w/ Maria and Jingqiu:

   Data for one set of satellites was still given Kg.  Now fixed, I have the following
   total for one day all over the world, assuming 3 land types. Seems reasonable, no?

   NOx (Tg N) assuming ALL is savanna / trop forest / extraTrop forest:
     0.080809369     0.063615890      0.10316091

   CO (Tg) assuming ALL is savanna / trop forest / extraTrop forest:
     4.6422410       7.5160097       7.8107557

   SMOKE (Tg) assuming ALL is savanna / trop forest / extraTrop forest:
     0.47039473      0.47039473      0.47039473

--Bob Y. 15:07, 18 February 2009 (EST)