Search for: All records

Abstract Accurately predicting weather and climate in cities is critical for safeguarding human health and strengthening urban resilience. Multimodel evaluations can lead to model improvements; however, there have been no major intercomparisons of urban‐focussed land surface models in over a decade. Here, in Phase 1 of the Urban‐PLUMBER project, we evaluate the ability of 30 land surface models to simulate surface energy fluxes critical to atmospheric meteorological and air quality simulations. We establish minimum and upper performance expectations for participating models using simple information‐limited models as benchmarks. Compared with the last major model intercomparison at the same site, we find broad improvement in the current cohort's predictions of short‐wave radiation, sensible and latent heat fluxes, but little or no improvement in long‐wave radiation and momentum fluxes. Models with a simple urban representation (e.g., ‘slab’ schemes) generally perform well, particularly when combined with sophisticated hydrological/vegetation models. Some mid‐complexity models (e.g., ‘canyon’ schemes) also perform well, indicating efforts to integrate vegetation and hydrology processes have paid dividends. The most complex models that resolve three‐dimensional interactions between buildings in general did not perform as well as other categories. However, these models also tended to have the simplest representations of hydrology and vegetation. Models without any urban representation (i.e., vegetation‐only land surface models) performed poorly for latent heat fluxes, and reasonably for other energy fluxes at this suburban site. Our analysis identified widespread human errors in initial submissions that substantially affected model performances. Although significant efforts are applied to correct these errors, we conclude that human factors are likely to influence results in this (or any) model intercomparison, particularly where participating scientists have varying experience and first languages. These initial results are for one suburban site, and future phases of Urban‐PLUMBER will evaluate models across 20 sites in different urban and regional climate zones. 

Abstract. Understanding and quantifying the global methane (CH4) budgetis important for assessing realistic pathways to mitigate climate change.Atmospheric emissions and concentrations of CH4 continue to increase,making CH4 the second most important human-influenced greenhouse gas interms of climate forcing, after carbon dioxide (CO2). The relativeimportance of CH4 compared to CO2 depends on its shorteratmospheric lifetime, stronger warming potential, and variations inatmospheric growth rate over the past decade, the causes of which are stilldebated. Two major challenges in reducing uncertainties in the atmosphericgrowth rate arise from the variety of geographically overlapping CH4sources and from the destruction of CH4 by short-lived hydroxylradicals (OH). To address these challenges, we have established aconsortium of multidisciplinary scientists under the umbrella of the GlobalCarbon Project to synthesize and stimulate new research aimed at improvingand regularly updating the global methane budget. Following Saunois et al. (2016), we present here the second version of the living review paperdedicated to the decadal methane budget, integrating results of top-downstudies (atmospheric observations within an atmospheric inverse-modellingframework) and bottom-up estimates (including process-based models forestimating land surface emissions and atmospheric chemistry, inventories ofanthropogenic emissions, and data-driven extrapolations). For the 2008–2017 decade, global methane emissions are estimated byatmospheric inversions (a top-down approach) to be 576 Tg CH4 yr−1 (range 550–594, corresponding to the minimum and maximumestimates of the model ensemble). Of this total, 359 Tg CH4 yr−1 or∼ 60 % is attributed to anthropogenic sources, that isemissions caused by direct human activity (i.e. anthropogenic emissions; range 336–376 Tg CH4 yr−1 or 50 %–65 %). The mean annual total emission for the new decade (2008–2017) is29 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than our estimate for the previous decade (2000–2009),and 24 Tg CH4 yr−1 larger than the one reported in the previousbudget for 2003–2012 (Saunois et al., 2016). Since 2012, global CH4emissions have been tracking the warmest scenarios assessed by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Bottom-up methods suggest almost30 % larger global emissions (737 Tg CH4 yr−1, range 594–881)than top-down inversion methods. Indeed, bottom-up estimates for naturalsources such as natural wetlands, other inland water systems, and geologicalsources are higher than top-down estimates. The atmospheric constraints onthe top-down budget suggest that at least some of these bottom-up emissionsare overestimated. The latitudinal distribution of atmosphericobservation-based emissions indicates a predominance of tropical emissions(∼ 65 % of the global budget, < 30∘ N)compared to mid-latitudes (∼ 30 %, 30–60∘ N)and high northern latitudes (∼ 4 %, 60–90∘ N). The most important source of uncertainty in the methanebudget is attributable to natural emissions, especially those from wetlandsand other inland waters. Some of our global source estimates are smaller than those in previouslypublished budgets (Saunois et al., 2016; Kirschke et al., 2013). In particular wetland emissions are about 35 Tg CH4 yr−1 lower due toimproved partition wetlands and other inland waters. Emissions fromgeological sources and wild animals are also found to be smaller by 7 Tg CH4 yr−1 by 8 Tg CH4 yr−1, respectively. However, the overalldiscrepancy between bottom-up and top-down estimates has been reduced byonly 5 % compared to Saunois et al. (2016), due to a higher estimate of emissions from inland waters, highlighting the need for more detailed research on emissions factors. Priorities for improving the methanebudget include (i) a global, high-resolution map of water-saturated soilsand inundated areas emitting methane based on a robust classification ofdifferent types of emitting habitats; (ii) further development ofprocess-based models for inland-water emissions; (iii) intensification ofmethane observations at local scales (e.g., FLUXNET-CH4 measurements)and urban-scale monitoring to constrain bottom-up land surface models, andat regional scales (surface networks and satellites) to constrainatmospheric inversions; (iv) improvements of transport models and therepresentation of photochemical sinks in top-down inversions; and (v) development of a 3D variational inversion system using isotopic and/orco-emitted species such as ethane to improve source partitioning. The data presented here can be downloaded fromhttps://doi.org/10.18160/GCP-CH4-2019 (Saunois et al., 2020) and from theGlobal Carbon Project.