Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-130
https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2021-130

  10 Jun 2021

10 Jun 2021

Review status: this preprint is currently under review for the journal BG.

Sensitivity of biomass burning emissions estimates to land surface information

Makoto Saito1, Tomohiro Shiraishi1, Ryuichi Hirata1, Yosuke Niwa1, Kazuyuki Saito2, Martin Steinbacher3, Doug Worthy4, and Tsuneo Matsunaga1 Makoto Saito et al.
  • 1National Institute for Environmental Studies, 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Japan
  • 2Japan Meteorological Agency, 1-3-4 Ote-machi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, Japan
  • 3Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, Ueberlandstrasse 129, CH-8600 Duebendorf, Switzerland
  • 4Environment and Climate Change Canada, 4905 Dufferin Street, Toronto, Ontario Canada

Abstract. Emissions from biomass burning (BB) are a key source of atmospheric tracer gases that affect the atmospheric carbon cycle. We estimated four types of global BB emissions using a bottom-up approach and by combining the remote sensing products related to fire distribution with two aboveground biomass (AGB) and two land cover classification (LCC) distributions. The sensitivity of the estimates of BB emissions to the AGB and LCC data was evaluated using the carbon monoxide (CO) emissions associated with each BB estimate. We found a substantial spatial difference in CO emissions for both the AGB and LCC data, which resulted in a large (factor of approximately three) spread of estimates for the mean annual CO emissions. We simulated atmospheric CO variability using an atmospheric tracer transport model and the BB emissions estimates and compared it with ground-based and satellite observations. At ground-based observation sites during fire seasons, statistical comparisons indicated that the impact of differences in the BB emissions estimates on atmospheric CO variability was poorly defined in our simulations. However, when compared at the regional and global scales, the distribution of atmospheric CO concentrations in the simulations show substantial differences among the estimates of BB emissions. These results indicate that the estimates of BB emissions are highly sensitive to the AGB and LCC data.

Makoto Saito et al.

Status: final response (author comments only)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on bg-2021-130', Anonymous Referee #1, 28 Jun 2021
  • RC2: 'Comment on bg-2021-130', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Jul 2021

Makoto Saito et al.

Makoto Saito et al.

Viewed

Total article views: 330 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
263 58 9 330 0 0
  • HTML: 263
  • PDF: 58
  • XML: 9
  • Total: 330
  • BibTeX: 0
  • EndNote: 0
Views and downloads (calculated since 10 Jun 2021)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 10 Jun 2021)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 289 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 289 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 21 Sep 2021
Download
Short summary
This study tested combinations of two sources of AGB data and two sources of LCC data, and used the same burned area satellite data to estimate BB CO emissions. Our analysis showed large discrepancies in annual mean CO emissions and explicit differences in the simulated CO concentrations among the BB emissions estimates. This study has confirmed that BB emissions estimates are sensitive to the land surface information on which they are based.
Altmetrics