| Literature DB >> 30033484 |
Yu Liu1,2, Tianxiang Yue3,4, Lili Zhang5, Na Zhao1,2, Miaomiao Zhao1,2, Yi Liu1,2.
Abstract
As an important cause of global warming, CO2 concentrations and their changes have aroused worldwide concern. Establishing explicit understanding of the spatial and temporal distributions of CO2 concentrations at regional scale is a crucial technical problem for climate change research. High accuracy surface modeling (HASM) is employed in this paper using the output of the CO2 concentrations from weather research and forecasting-chemistry (WRF-CHEM) as the driving fields, and the greenhouse gases observing satellite (GOSAT) retrieval XCO2 data as the accuracy control conditions to obtain high accuracy XCO2 fields. WRF-CHEM is an atmospheric chemical transport model designed for regional studies of CO2 concentrations. Verified by ground- and space-based observations, WRF-CHEM has a limited ability to simulate the conditions of CO2 concentrations. After conducting HASM, we obtain a higher accuracy distribution of the CO2 in North China than those calculated using the classical Kriging and inverse distance weighted (IDW) interpolation methods, which were often used in past studies. The cross-validation also shows that the averaging mean absolute error (MAE) of the results from HASM is 1.12 ppmv, and the averaging root mean square error (RMSE) is 1.41 ppmv, both of which are lower than those of the Kriging and IDW methods. This study also analyses the space-time distributions and variations of the XCO2 from the HASM results. This analysis shows that in February and March, there was the high value zone in the southern region of study area relating to heating in the winter and the dense population. The XCO2 concentration decreased by the end of the heating period and during the growing period of April and May, and only some relatively high value zones continued to exist.Entities:
Keywords: GOSAT XCO2; HASM; WRF-CHEM; XCO2 simulation
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30033484 PMCID: PMC6132398 DOI: 10.1007/s11356-018-2683-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Environ Sci Pollut Res Int ISSN: 0944-1344 Impact factor: 4.223
Fig. 1Land cover of the study region derived from ESA (European Space Agency) global land cover dataset. The red dots are the locations of the available GOSAT XCO2 L2 data points during the study period (from February to May 2015). The blue dot is the location of the Shangdianzi Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) Regional Station
Fig. 2The dataset, components, and workflow involved in the operation of WRF-CHEM
Fig. 3The workflow used to obtain the XCO2 field based on HASM
Fig. 4The comparison of CO2 values near the surface between simulations and observations. The red lines show the WRF-CHEM grid CO2 simulations. The blue line is the observations of Shangdianzi Station from WDCGG
Basic statistics of XCO2 from WRF-CHEM and GOSAT
| 2015.02 | 2015.03 | 2015.04 | 2015.05 | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WRF-CHEM | GOSAT XCO2 | WRF-CHEM | GOSAT XCO2 | WRF-CHEM | GOSAT XCO2 | WRF-CHEM | GOSAT XCO2 | |
| Max (ppmv) | 404.41 | 405.35 | 403.87 | 406.36 | 405.35 | 404.71 | 404.97 | 403.22 |
| Min (ppmv) | 400.92 | 396.43 | 401.58 | 395.60 | 402.97 | 398.09 | 402.01 | 398.27 |
| Mean (ppmv) | 402.17 | 400.21 | 402.41 | 399.59 | 403.84 | 400.65 | 403.83 | 400.87 |
| Variance | 1.04 | 2.74 | 0.57 | 2.96 | 0.72 | 1.71 | 0.66 | 1.31 |
| Correlation coefficient | 0.78 | 0.51 | 0.56 | 0.40 | ||||
Fig. 5Comparison of the three methods and GOSAT retrieval data on 2015.02. a HASM. b Kriging. c IDW
Fig. 6Comparison of the three methods and GOSAT retrieval data on 2015.03. a HASM. b Kriging. c IDW
Fig. 7Comparison of the three methods and GOSAT retrieval data on 2015.04. a HASM. b Kriging. c IDW
Fig. 8Comparison of the three methods and GOSAT retrieval data on 2015.05. a HASM. b Kriging. c IDW
Mean absolute error (MAE) and root mean square error (RMSE) values of the three methods
| MAE (ppmv) | RMSE (ppmv) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HASM | Kriging | IDW | HASM | Kriging | IDW | |
| 2015.02 | 1.50 | 1.75 | 1.77 | 1.89 | 2.15 | 2.10 |
| 2015.03 | 1.53 | 1.48 | 1.48 | 1.98 | 2.00 | 2.04 |
| 2015.04 | 0.80 | 0.83 | 0.95 | 0.98 | 1.03 | 1.10 |
| 2015.05 | 0.65 | 0.76 | 0.72 | 0.80 | 1.02 | 0.88 |
| mean | 1.12 | 1.27 | 1.23 | 1.41 | 1.55 | 1.53 |
Fig. 9Spatiotemporal distribution of monthly XCO2 values from HASM. a February. b March. c April. d May