Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2017-169
© Author(s) 2017. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
09 Mar 2017
Review status
A revision of this discussion paper was accepted for the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP) and is expected to appear here in due course.
Detectability of Arctic methane sources at six sites performing continuous atmospheric measurements
Thibaud Thonat1, Marielle Saunois1, Philippe Bousquet1, Isabelle Pison1, Zeli Tan2, Qianlai Zhuang3, Patrick Crill4, Brett Thornton4, David Bastviken5, Ed J. Dlugokencky6, Nikita Zimov7, Tuomas Laurila8, Juha Hatakka9, Ove Hermansen9, and Doug E. J. Worthy10 1Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement, LSCE/IPSL, CEA-CNRSUVSQ, Université Paris-Saclay, F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette, France
2Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington, USA
3Department of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA
4Department of Geological Sciences and Bolin Centre for Climate Research, Svante Arrhenius väg 8, 106 91, Stockholm, Sweden
5Department of Thematic Studies – Environmental Change, Linköping University, 581 83 Linköping, Sweden
6NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, Global Monitoring Division, Boulder, Colorado, USA
7Northeast Science Station, Cherskiy, Russia
8Climate and Global Change Research, Finnish Meteorological Institute, Helsinki, Finland
9NILU − Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway
10Environment Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Abstract. Understanding the recent evolution of methane emissions in the Arctic is necessary to interpret the global methane cycle. Emissions are affected by significant uncertainties and are sensitive to climate change, leading to potential feedbacks. A polar version of the CHIMERE chemistry-transport model is used to simulate the evolution of tropospheric methane in the Arctic during 2012, including all known regional anthropogenic and natural sources. CHIMERE simulations are compared to atmospheric continuous observations at six measurement sites in the Arctic region. In winter, the Arctic is dominated by anthropogenic emissions; emissions from continental seepages and oceans, including from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, can contribute significantly in more limited areas. In summer, emissions from wetland and freshwater sources dominate across the whole region. The model is able to reproduce the seasonality and synoptic variations of methane measured at the different sites. We find that all methane sources significantly affect the measurements at all stations at least at the synoptic scale, except for biomass burning; this indicates the relevance of continuous observations to gain a mechanistic understanding of Arctic methane sources. Sensitivity tests reveal that the choice of the land surface model used to prescribe wetland emissions can be critical in correctly representing methane concentrations. Also testing different freshwater emission inventories leads to large differences in modelled methane. Attempts to include methane sinks (OH oxidation and soil uptake) reduced the model bias relative to observed atmospheric CH4. The study illustrates how multiple sources, having different spatiotemporal dynamics and magnitudes, jointly influence the overall Arctic methane budget, and highlights ways towards further improved assessments.

Citation: Thonat, T., Saunois, M., Bousquet, P., Pison, I., Tan, Z., Zhuang, Q., Crill, P., Thornton, B., Bastviken, D., Dlugokencky, E. J., Zimov, N., Laurila, T., Hatakka, J., Hermansen, O., and Worthy, D. E. J.: Detectability of Arctic methane sources at six sites performing continuous atmospheric measurements, Atmos. Chem. Phys. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-2017-169, in review, 2017.
Thibaud Thonat et al.
Interactive discussionStatus: closed
AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment
Printer-friendly Version - Printer-friendly version      Supplement - Supplement
 
RC1: 'Referee report', Anonymous Referee #1, 06 Apr 2017 Printer-friendly Version 
AC1: 'Response to Referee #1', Thibaud Thonat, 06 Jun 2017 Printer-friendly Version 
 
RC2: 'Review of Thonat et al', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 May 2017 Printer-friendly Version 
AC2: 'Response to Referee #2', Thibaud Thonat, 06 Jun 2017 Printer-friendly Version 
Thibaud Thonat et al.
Thibaud Thonat et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 448 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
299 99 50 448 13 14 49

Views and downloads (calculated since 09 Mar 2017)

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 09 Mar 2017)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 448 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

Thereof 442 with geography defined and 6 with unknown origin.

Country # Views %
  • 1

Saved

Discussed

Latest update: 27 Jun 2017
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
Atmospheric methane simulations in the Arctic have been made for 2012, and compared to continuous observations at six measurement sites. All methane sources significantly affect the measurements at all stations at least at the synoptic scale, except for biomass burning. An appropriate modelling framework combined with continuous observations of atmospheric methane enables us to gain knowledge on regional methane sources, including those which are usually poorly represented, such as freshwaters.
Atmospheric methane simulations in the Arctic have been made for 2012, and compared to...
Share