Journal cover Journal topic
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics An interactive open-access journal of the European Geosciences Union
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 305-317, 2015
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/15/305/2015/
doi:10.5194/acp-15-305-2015
© Author(s) 2015. This work is distributed
under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Research article
13 Jan 2015
Simulations of atmospheric methane for Cape Grim, Tasmania, to constrain southeastern Australian methane emissions
Z. M. Loh1, R. M. Law1, K. D. Haynes1,*, P. B. Krummel1, L. P. Steele1, P. J. Fraser1, S. D. Chambers2, and A. G. Williams2 1Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research, CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, Private Bag 1, Aspendale, Vic 3195, Australia
2Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Locked Bag 2001, Kirrawee DC, NSW 2232, Australia
*now at: Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
Abstract. This study uses two climate models and six scenarios of prescribed methane emissions to compare modelled and observed atmospheric methane between 1994 and 2007, for Cape Grim, Australia (40.7° S, 144.7° E). The model simulations follow the TransCom-CH4 protocol and use the Australian Community Climate and Earth System Simulator (ACCESS) and the CSIRO Conformal-Cubic Atmospheric Model (CCAM). Radon is also simulated and used to reduce the impact of transport differences between the models and observations. Comparisons are made for air samples that have traversed the Australian continent. All six emission scenarios give modelled concentrations that are broadly consistent with those observed. There are three notable mismatches, however. Firstly, scenarios that incorporate interannually varying biomass burning emissions produce anomalously high methane concentrations at Cape Grim at times of large fire events in southeastern Australia, most likely due to the fire methane emissions being unrealistically input into the lowest model level. Secondly, scenarios with wetland methane emissions in the austral winter overestimate methane concentrations at Cape Grim during wintertime while scenarios without winter wetland emissions perform better. Finally, all scenarios fail to represent a~methane source in austral spring implied by the observations. It is possible that the timing of wetland emissions in the scenarios is incorrect with recent satellite measurements suggesting an austral spring (September–October–November), rather than winter, maximum for wetland emissions.

Citation: Loh, Z. M., Law, R. M., Haynes, K. D., Krummel, P. B., Steele, L. P., Fraser, P. J., Chambers, S. D., and Williams, A. G.: Simulations of atmospheric methane for Cape Grim, Tasmania, to constrain southeastern Australian methane emissions, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 15, 305-317, doi:10.5194/acp-15-305-2015, 2015.
Publications Copernicus
Download
Short summary
The paper compares methane observations at Cape Grim, Tasmania, with model-simulated methane to better constrain methane fluxes from southeastern Australia. Inventory estimates of anthropogenic methane emissions appear to be supported by observed atmospheric methane. A missing methane source in springtime (October to November) is tentatively attributed to wetland emissions.
The paper compares methane observations at Cape Grim, Tasmania, with model-simulated methane to...
Share