GlobMapFuelCO2-TechReport

Download

[email protected]

March 2012

2 participants
1 discussions

Re: [GlobMapFuelCO2-TechReport] Comments by Felix Vogel on the Google Docs version
by S.W.L.Palstra 15 Mar '12

15 Mar '12

Dear all, Finally I have read the workshop-paper (sorry for the delay) and I have the following comments/suggestions: General comments I would like to thank Martin for the efforts he has put in making a paper out of the abstracts we all sent in and which gave an overview of what we have presented at the workshop in Braunschweig. After reading this first draft, I must, however, admit that I doubt whether we can really present something attractive and new (my motivation in general to read a new paper). I miss an overall story in the current paper version. A straigth forward story connecting all those different aspects of mapping carbon fuel emissions that have been presented and discussed during the workshop. As also stated in the paper: the now discussed different aspects will not give a complete overview of the main subject. Also, the aspects discussed in the paper are just fractions of the research behind it. So if we are not complete (in aspects and details): what is the interest of what we want to show and tell? And how do we want to show it? The current text is not easy to follow. Both general descriptions and details are shown, but it seems that not all details are of interest, when telling a more general story. I think the current paper should be shortened a lot. And every aspect that is discussed during the workshop should be treated in the same way, that is: focused on answering the same questions: 1) what methods are used to determine and/or map carbon fuel emissions, 2) what are the method uncertainties. Without giving too much details. By that I can get a quick overview of every aspect how it is related to mapping of carbon fuel emissions and its current uncertainties. Now there is too much text and I cannot follow the story. The current conclusions section should be much shorter too. I realize that it is much easier to comment on a paper, than to write one! More detailed comments: Although the title suggest that the paper is about 'carbon fuel emissions', it is not clear what is exactly ment with 'carbon fuel emissions'. Are these CO2 emissions alone? As CO is also mentioned in this paper. Is it mainly about fossil fuel emissions? Or bio(genic) fuel carbon as well? That is not systematically distinguished in the current text. And why are other green house gases than CO2 and CO also mentioned in this paper about carbon fuel emissions? (because these are part of methods to verify CO2 emissions?, but that is not nicely introduced/explained in the text). Perhaps it would be an idea to show in the introduction a scheme in which the different methods to determine fossil and biocarbon fuel emissions (in time and/or space) and the different data-sets/measurements are mentioned, that will be discussed in the paper. The section "Assessment and improvement of emissions data products by in-situ measurements" contains parts of both Felix and my presentations/abstracts. It partly overlaps. In my point of view this section should contain a general introduction about using 14C, CO, radon and other GHG's measurements to quantify fossil fuel CO2 emissions and its uncertainties, with some references to relevant papers. The part with the Dutch case is too much in detail and can be skipped (the detailed part). Felix and Martin, I think it would be very good to re-arrange and shorten this current section. Do you agree with that? Shall I make a new version of this section? Or do you (or others) already have specific ideas about it? Best wishes, Sanne Palstra On 17-02-12, Martin Köchy <office(a)martinkoechy.de> wrote: > > > > Anfang der weitergeleiteten E-Mail: > > > Comment by Philippe: I do not understand why this makes temporal more important than spatial validation? > > > > FelixRVogel > > Agreed, this statement would need further investigation to really "quantify" if spatial or temporal variation is more important - changed > > AntwortenIgnorierenÖffnen » > > > > FelixRVogel > > Included comment - checked the IER seasonal emission factors and the are constant e.g. for SNAP5 (extraction and distribution of fossil fuels) > > > > Comment by Philippe: CH4 and N2O are very bad examples because a necessary condition is that sources of tracer and FFCO2 must be collocated. Further if tracer X = S * FFCO2, the ability of X to constrain FFCO2 depends on the space time variability of slope S. See Rivier et al. JGR 2006 for discussion > > > > FelixRVogel > > Indeed, N2O and CH4 are not the best examples. But Miller et al successfully used this approach for CH4. Changed the text to focus anthropogenic tracers like CO, HFCs and CFCs that are well correlated. Extended discussion and included Rivier reference. > > > _______________________________________________ > GlobMapFuelCO2-TechReport mailing list > GlobMapFuelCO2-TechReport(a)lists.ourproject.org > https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/globmapfuelco2-techre… > >

2 1