Difference between revisions of "Biomass burning emissions"

From Geos-chem
Jump to: navigation, search
(update FIRECAM details)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 29: Line 29:
 
== FIRECAM tool ==
 
== FIRECAM tool ==
  
I developed the [https://globalfires.earthengine.app/view/firecam FIRECAM tool] for end-users to quickly compare fire emissions estimates from five global inventories (GFEDv4s, GFASv1.2, FINNv1.5, QFEDv2.5r1, and FEERv1.0-G1.2) for a given study region. Currently, FIRECAM supports six species: CO2, CO, CH4, OC, BC, and PM2.5. FIRECAM compares the five inventories at an aggregated 0.5deg x 0.5deg spatial resolution for the 2003-2016 time period. Please see the [https://github.com/tianjialiu/FIRECAM FIRECAM Github repository] and [https://dx.doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/nh57j our paper] for more information. The paper describes the methodological differences among these inventories and metrics we developed to diagnose spatial biases and uncertainties. We recommend end-users to use multiple inventories in modeling runs, if possible. The choice of emissions inventory can significantly impact model results. If not feasible, please take the time to see how emissions estimates vary in your study region using the FIRECAM tool.
+
I developed the [https://globalfires.earthengine.app/view/firecam FIRECAM tool] for end-users to quickly compare fire emissions estimates from five global inventories (GFEDv4s, GFASv1.2, FINNv1.5, QFEDv2.5r1, and FEERv1.0-G1.2) for a given study region. Currently, FIRECAM supports six species: CO2, CO, CH4, OC, BC, and PM2.5. FIRECAM compares the five inventories at an aggregated 0.5deg x 0.5deg spatial resolution for the 2003-2018 time period. Please see the [https://sites.google.com/view/firecam/home FIRECAM website] and [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111557 our paper] for more information. The paper describes the methodological differences among these inventories and metrics we developed to diagnose spatial biases and uncertainties. We recommend end-users to use multiple inventories in model runs, if possible. As we show in our paper, the choice of emissions inventory can significantly impact model results. If this is not feasible, please take the time to see how much emissions estimates vary in your study region using the FIRECAM tool.
  
--[[User:tianjialiu|Tianjia Liu]] ([[User talk:tianjialiu|talk]]) 15:05, 21 August 2019 (EDT)
+
--[[User:tianjialiu|Tianjia Liu]] ([[User talk:tianjialiu|talk]]) 15:30, 21 August 2019 (EDT)
  
 
== Previous issues that are now resolved ==
 
== Previous issues that are now resolved ==
Line 91: Line 91:
 
#Mu, M., J.T. Randerson, G.R. van der Werf, L. Giglio, P. Kasibhatla, D. Morton, G.J. Collatz, R.S. DeFries,  E.J. Hyer, E.M. Prins, D.W.T. Griffith, D. Wunch, G.C. Toon, V. Sherlock, and P.O. Wennberg, ''Daily and 3-hourly variability in global fire emissions and consequences for atmospheric model predictions of carbon monoxide'', <u>Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres</u>, '''116''', D24303, doi:10.1029/2011JD016245, 2011.
 
#Mu, M., J.T. Randerson, G.R. van der Werf, L. Giglio, P. Kasibhatla, D. Morton, G.J. Collatz, R.S. DeFries,  E.J. Hyer, E.M. Prins, D.W.T. Griffith, D. Wunch, G.C. Toon, V. Sherlock, and P.O. Wennberg, ''Daily and 3-hourly variability in global fire emissions and consequences for atmospheric model predictions of carbon monoxide'', <u>Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres</u>, '''116''', D24303, doi:10.1029/2011JD016245, 2011.
 
#Nassar, R., J. A. Logan, I. A. Megretskaia, L. T. Murray, L. Zhang, and D. B. A. Jones, ''Analysis of tropical tropospheric ozone, carbon monoxide and water vapor during the 2006 El Niño using TES observations and the GEOS-Chem model'', <u>J. Geophys. Res.</u>, '''114''', D17304, doi:10.1029/2009JD011760, 2009. [http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/publications/2009/nassar_2009.pdf PDF]
 
#Nassar, R., J. A. Logan, I. A. Megretskaia, L. T. Murray, L. Zhang, and D. B. A. Jones, ''Analysis of tropical tropospheric ozone, carbon monoxide and water vapor during the 2006 El Niño using TES observations and the GEOS-Chem model'', <u>J. Geophys. Res.</u>, '''114''', D17304, doi:10.1029/2009JD011760, 2009. [http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/publications/2009/nassar_2009.pdf PDF]
#Liu, T., L.J. Mickley, R.S. DeFries, M.E. Marlier, M.F. Khan, M.T. Latif, and A. Karambelas, ''Diagnosing spatial uncertainties and relative biases in global fire emissions inventories: Indonesia as regional case study'', <u>Remote Sens. Environ.</u>, in review. [https://dx.doi.org/10.31223/osf.io/nh57j preprint]
+
#Liu, T., L.J. Mickley, R.S. DeFries, M.E. Marlier, M.F. Khan, M.T. Latif, and A. Karambelas, ''Diagnosing spatial uncertainties and relative biases in global fire emissions inventories: Indonesia as regional case study'', <u>Remote Sens. Environ.</u>, '''237''', 111557. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2019.111557 Article]
 
#van der Werf, G. R., J. T. Randerson, L. Giglio, T. T. van Leeuwen, Y. Chen, B. M. Rogers, M. Mu, M. J. E. van Marle, D. C. Morton, G. J. Collatz, R. J. Yokelson, and P. S. Kasibhatla, ''Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016'', <u>Earth Sys. Sci. Data</u>, '''9''', 697-720, 2017. [https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017 Article]
 
#van der Werf, G. R., J. T. Randerson, L. Giglio, T. T. van Leeuwen, Y. Chen, B. M. Rogers, M. Mu, M. J. E. van Marle, D. C. Morton, G. J. Collatz, R. J. Yokelson, and P. S. Kasibhatla, ''Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016'', <u>Earth Sys. Sci. Data</u>, '''9''', 697-720, 2017. [https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-9-697-2017 Article]
 
#Wiedinmyer, C., S.K. Akagi, R.J. Yokelson, L.K. Emmons, J.J. Orlando, and A.J. Soja, ''The Fire INventory from NCAR (FINN): a high resolution global model to estimate the emissions from open burning'', <u>Geosci. Model Dev.</u>, '''4''', 625–641, 2011. [https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-625-2011 Article]
 
#Wiedinmyer, C., S.K. Akagi, R.J. Yokelson, L.K. Emmons, J.J. Orlando, and A.J. Soja, ''The Fire INventory from NCAR (FINN): a high resolution global model to estimate the emissions from open burning'', <u>Geosci. Model Dev.</u>, '''4''', 625–641, 2011. [https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-625-2011 Article]

Latest revision as of 07:30, 12 December 2019

This page describes the options for biomass burning emissions in GEOS-Chem.

GFED4

The GFED4 biomass burning emission inventory is now the current default biomass burning dataset for GEOS-Chem (introduced in v10-01, June 2015). The current GFED4 archive contains data from 1997 through 2016.

GFED4 has since superseded the obsolete GFED3 and GFED2 inventories.

--Bob Yantosca (talk) 19:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

FINNv1

The FINNv1 biomass burning emission inventory has been added to GEOS-Chem v10-01 via the HEMCO emissions component. This inventory may be used to replace GFED4 for research purposes.

--Melissa Sulprizio 10:21, 18 February 2015 (EST)

QFED

The QFED biomass burning emission inventory has been added to GEOS-Chem v10-01 via the HEMCO emissions component. This inventory may be used to replace GFED4 for research purposes.

--Melissa Sulprizio (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

GFAS

The GFAS biomass burning emission inventory was added in GEOS-Chem 12.2.0 via the HEMCO emissions component. This inventory may be used to replace GFED4 for research purposes.

--Melissa Sulprizio (talk) 12:19, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

FIRECAM tool

I developed the FIRECAM tool for end-users to quickly compare fire emissions estimates from five global inventories (GFEDv4s, GFASv1.2, FINNv1.5, QFEDv2.5r1, and FEERv1.0-G1.2) for a given study region. Currently, FIRECAM supports six species: CO2, CO, CH4, OC, BC, and PM2.5. FIRECAM compares the five inventories at an aggregated 0.5deg x 0.5deg spatial resolution for the 2003-2018 time period. Please see the FIRECAM website and our paper for more information. The paper describes the methodological differences among these inventories and metrics we developed to diagnose spatial biases and uncertainties. We recommend end-users to use multiple inventories in model runs, if possible. As we show in our paper, the choice of emissions inventory can significantly impact model results. If this is not feasible, please take the time to see how much emissions estimates vary in your study region using the FIRECAM tool.

--Tianjia Liu (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2019 (EDT)

Previous issues that are now resolved

Fix bug in biomass burning emissions when GFED is turned off

This update was included in v11-02f (approved 17 May 2018).

Corey Trujillo (U. Colorado) wrote:

I've been learning GEOS-Chem v11-01 and have encountered two anomalies (one a bug, one a potential bug) when I turn off GFED. These also appear to persist in v11-02d.
The first issue is that the model defaults to using BOND biomass burning if GFED (or FINN) is off. This is a bit strange, especially since BOND biomass burning would then be turned on if a user turned off GFED and FINN but turned on QFED - this would lead to double biomass burning emissions for BC and OC. This can be avoided by defining a separate emission extension for BOND biomass burning in HEMCO_Config.rc, i.e. replacing this:
  (((.not.GFED.or.FINN
  0 BOND_BM_BCPI   $ROOT/BCOC_BOND/v2014-07/Bond_biomass.nc BC   2000/1-12/1/0 C xy kg/m2/s BCPI 70    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_BCPO   -                                        -    -             - -  -       BCPO 71    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_OCPI   $ROOT/BCOC_BOND/v2014-07/Bond_biomass.nc OC   2000/1-12/1/0 C xy kg/m2/s OCPI 72    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_OCPO   -                                        -    -             - -  -       OCPO 73    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_POG1   -                                        -    -             - -  -       POG1 74/76 2 1
  0 BOND_BM_POG2   -                                        -    -             - -  -       POG2 74/77 2 1
  ))).not.GFED.or.FINN
with something like this:
  (((BOND_BBURN
  0 BOND_BM_BCPI   $ROOT/BCOC_BOND/v2014-07/Bond_biomass.nc BC   2000/1-12/1/0 C xy kg/m2/s BCPI 70    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_BCPO   -                                        -    -             - -  -       BCPO 71    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_OCPI   $ROOT/BCOC_BOND/v2014-07/Bond_biomass.nc OC   2000/1-12/1/0 C xy kg/m2/s OCPI 72    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_OCPO   -                                        -    -             - -  -       OCPO 73    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_POG1   -                                        -    -             - -  -       POG1 74/76 2 1
  0 BOND_BM_POG2   -                                        -    -             - -  -       POG2 74/77 2 1
  )))BOND_BBURN
The second issue is that if someone is to use the BOND biomass burning emissions, either intentionally or not, the emissions are not showing up in the BC-BIOB diagnostic. Instead, that diagnostic is all zeros, even though there is still clearly biomass burning emissions occurring in the model. Figures demonstrating this for a one month simulation of the standard code for July 2013, 4x5, GEOSFP, can be found here.
There is thus a bug in the BC-BIOB diagnostic — has anyone else encountered this or have a suggestion for a fix?

Therese Carter (MIT) wrote:

A question came up recently about v11-01 defaulting to using BOND biomass burning emissions if QFED is switched on and both FINN and GFED are switched off. This can be fairly easily fixed by adding the following code in red:
  (((.not.GFED.or.FINN.or.QFED2
  0 BOND_BM_BCPI   $ROOT/BCOC_BOND/v2014-07/Bond_biomass.nc BC   2000/1-12/1/0 C xy kg/m2/s BCPI 70    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_BCPO   -                                        -    -             - -  -       BCPO 71    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_OCPI   $ROOT/BCOC_BOND/v2014-07/Bond_biomass.nc OC   2000/1-12/1/0 C xy kg/m2/s OCPI 72    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_OCPO   -                                        -    -             - -  -       OCPO 73    2 1
  0 BOND_BM_POG1   -                                        -    -             - -  -       POG1 74/76 2 1
  0 BOND_BM_POG2   -                                        -    -             - -  -       POG2 74/77 2 1
  ))).not.GFED.or.FINN.or.QFED2

--Bob Yantosca (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. Duncan, B.N., et al., Interannual and Seasonal Variability of Biomass Burning Emissions Constrained by Satellite Observations, J. Geophys. Res., 108(D2), 4040, doi:10.1029/2002JD002378, 2003. PDF
  2. Hyer, E., FLAMBE Biomass Burning emissions for ARCTAS, 2008. PDF
  3. Lobert, J. M., W. C. Keene, J. A. Logan, and R. Yevich, Global chlorine emissions from biomass burning: the reactive chlorine emissions inventory, J. Geophys. Res., 8, 2999-3014, 2008.
  4. Mu, M., J.T. Randerson, G.R. van der Werf, L. Giglio, P. Kasibhatla, D. Morton, G.J. Collatz, R.S. DeFries, E.J. Hyer, E.M. Prins, D.W.T. Griffith, D. Wunch, G.C. Toon, V. Sherlock, and P.O. Wennberg, Daily and 3-hourly variability in global fire emissions and consequences for atmospheric model predictions of carbon monoxide, Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, 116, D24303, doi:10.1029/2011JD016245, 2011.
  5. Nassar, R., J. A. Logan, I. A. Megretskaia, L. T. Murray, L. Zhang, and D. B. A. Jones, Analysis of tropical tropospheric ozone, carbon monoxide and water vapor during the 2006 El Niño using TES observations and the GEOS-Chem model, J. Geophys. Res., 114, D17304, doi:10.1029/2009JD011760, 2009. PDF
  6. Liu, T., L.J. Mickley, R.S. DeFries, M.E. Marlier, M.F. Khan, M.T. Latif, and A. Karambelas, Diagnosing spatial uncertainties and relative biases in global fire emissions inventories: Indonesia as regional case study, Remote Sens. Environ., 237, 111557. Article
  7. van der Werf, G. R., J. T. Randerson, L. Giglio, T. T. van Leeuwen, Y. Chen, B. M. Rogers, M. Mu, M. J. E. van Marle, D. C. Morton, G. J. Collatz, R. J. Yokelson, and P. S. Kasibhatla, Global fire emissions estimates during 1997–2016, Earth Sys. Sci. Data, 9, 697-720, 2017. Article
  8. Wiedinmyer, C., S.K. Akagi, R.J. Yokelson, L.K. Emmons, J.J. Orlando, and A.J. Soja, The Fire INventory from NCAR (FINN): a high resolution global model to estimate the emissions from open burning, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 625–641, 2011. Article
  9. Kaiser, J.W., A. Heil, M.O. Andreae, A. Benedetti, N. Chubarova, L. Jones, J.J. Morcrette, M. Razinger, M.G. Schultz, M. Suttie, and G.R. van der Werf, Biomass burning emissions estimated with a global fire assimilation system based on observed fire radiative power, Biogeosciences, 9, 527–554, 2012. Article
  10. Darmenov, A.S. and A. da Silva, The Quick Fire Emissions Dataset (QFED) - Documentation of versions 2.1, 2.2, and 2.4, NASA Technical Report Series on Global Modeling and Data Assimilation, Volume 32, 2013. Article
  11. Ichoku, C. and L. Ellison, Global top-down smoke-aerosol emissions estimation using satellite fire radiative power measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 14, 6643–6667, 2014. Article

--Melissa Payer 15:10, 21 February 2012 (EST)