Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2025

Measuring Carbon-based Contaminant Mineralization Using Combined CO2 Flux and Radiocarbon Analyses
Published on: October 21, 2016
Investigating Sources of Variability and Error in Simulations of Carbon Dioxide in an Urban Region
Cory R Martin1, N Zeng1,2, A Karion3
1Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Science, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA.
Abstract:
As cities embark upon greenhouse gas (GHG) mitigation efforts, there is an increasing need for accurate quantification of urban emissions. In urban areas, transport and dispersion is particularly difficult to simulate using current mesoscale meteorological models due, in part, to added complexity from surface heterogeneity and fine spatial/temporal scales. It is generally assumed that the errors in GHG estimation methods in urban areas are dominated by errors in transport and dispersion. Other significant errors include, but are not limited to, those from assumed emissions magnitude and spatial distribution. To assess the predictability of simulated trace gas mole fractions in urban observing systems using a numerical weather prediction model, we employ an Eulerian model that combines traditional meteorological variables with multiple passive tracers of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) from anthropogenic inventories and a biospheric model. The predictability of the Eulerian model is assessed by comparing simulated atmospheric CO2 mole fractions to observations from four in situ tower sites (three urban and one rural) in the Washington DC/Baltimore, MD area for February 2016. Four different gridded fossil fuel emissions inventories along with a biospheric flux model are used to create an ensemble of simulated atmospheric CO2 observations within the model. These ensembles help to evaluate whether the modeled observations are impacted more by the underlying emissions or transport. The spread of modeled observations using the four emission fields indicates the model's ability to distinguish between the different inventories under various meteorological conditions. Overall, the Eulerian model performs well; simulated and observed average CO2 mole fractions agree within 1% when averaged at the three urban sites across the month. However, there can be differences greater than 10% at any given hour, which are attributed to complex meteorological conditions rather than differences in the inventories themselves. On average, the mean absolute error of the simulated compared to actual observations is generally twice as large as the standard deviation of the modeled mole fractions across the four emission inventories. This result supports the assumption, in urban domains, that the predicted mole fraction error relative to observations is dominated by errors in model meteorology rather than errors in the underlying fluxes in winter months. As such, minimizing errors associated with atmospheric transport and dispersion may help improve the performance of GHG estimation models more so than improving flux priors in the winter months. We also find that the errors associated with atmospheric transport in urban domains are not restricted to certain times of day. This suggests that atmospheric inversions should use CO2 observations that have been filtered using meteorological observations rather than assuming that meteorological modeling is most accurate at certain times of day (such as using only mid-afternoon observations).
Related Concept Videos
Random Error
Random and Systematic Errors
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Types of Errors: Detection and Minimization
Absolute error in a measurement is the numerical difference from the true or central value. Relative error is the ratio between absolute error and the true or central value, expressed as a percentage.
Errors can be classified by source, magnitude, and sign. There are three types of errors: systematic, random, and gross.
Systematic or...
Propagation of Uncertainty from Systematic Error
Uncertainty in Measurement: Accuracy and Precision

