Characterization of uncertainties in atmospheric trace gas inversions using hierarchical Bayesian methods

106Citations
Citations of this article
96Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

We present a hierarchical Bayesian method for atmospheric trace gas inversions. This method is used to estimate emissions of trace gases as well as "hyper-parameters" that characterize the probability density functions (PDFs) of the a priori emissions and model-measurement covariances. By exploring the space of "uncertainties in uncertainties", we show that the hierarchical method results in a more complete estimation of emissions and their uncertainties than traditional Bayesian inversions, which rely heavily on expert judgment. We present an analysis that shows the effect of including hyper-parameters, which are themselves informed by the data, and show that this method can serve to reduce the effect of errors in assumptions made about the a priori emissions and model-measurement uncertainties. We then apply this method to the estimation of sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) emissions over 2012 for the regions surrounding four Advanced Global Atmospheric Gases Experiment (AGAGE) stations. We find that improper accounting of model representation uncertainties, in particular, can lead to the derivation of emissions and associated uncertainties that are unrealistic and show that those derived using the hierarchical method are likely to be more representative of the true uncertainties in the system. We demonstrate through this SF6 case study that this method is less sensitive to outliers in the data and to subjective assumptions about a priori emissions and model-measurement uncertainties than traditional methods. © Author(s) 2014. CC Attribution 3.0 License.

Figures

  • Fig. 1. Quantile–quantile (Q–Q) plots of a hierarchical Bayesian inversion (red) and a non-hierarchical Bayesian inversion (blue) in which a priori emissions uncertainties used in the inversion were (a) smaller than the true uncertainty (over-confident) and (b) larger than the true uncertainty (under-confident).
  • Fig. 2. Median 2012 SF6 emissions for regions around (a) Mace Head, Ireland; (b) Trinidad Head, USA; (c) Gosan, South Korea; and (d) Cape Grim, Australia. Derived emissions were redistributed from the aggregated regions solved for in the inversion by assuming the distribution of EDGAR emissions.
  • Table 1. National SF6 emissions for 2012 derived using the hierarchical Bayesian method for the regions surrounding four AGAGE stations. The fraction of the country for which emissions are derived (i.e., fraction of EDGAR emissions contained within the domains shown in Fig. 2) is tabulated along with 50th (median), 16th and 84th percentiles of the posterior emissions PDF.
  • Fig. 3. Difference between derived 2012 SF6 emissions and the scaled EDGAR emissions for regions around (a) Mace Head, Ireland; (b) Trinidad Head, USA; (c) Gosan, South Korea; and (d) Cape Grim, Australia. Positive differences are shown by the red logarithmic color map and negative differences by the blue logarithmic color map.
  • Fig. 4. National emissions derived using three methods: (1) hierarchical Bayesian (HB) inversion (blue); (2) non-hierarchical Bayesian inversion (NHB) with model-measurement uncertainties that include a model error (red); and (3) non-hierarchical Bayesian inversion in which no model error was included (green). A priori emissions are shown as black bars, and uncertainties reflect the 16th to 84th percentiles of the posterior national emissions. The asterisk (*) refers to countries in which emissions were derived for only a fraction of the country. For clarity, the inset shows a magnified view of countries with relatively smaller emissions.
  • Fig. 5. Monthly 2012 SF6 model-measurement uncertainties derived for daytime observations (blue) and nighttime observations (red) with error bars corresponding to 16th to 84th percentiles of the posterior distributions. The a priori value is shown by the black line.
  • Fig. 6. Simulated 2012 SF6 mole fractions (red line) and observations (blue dot) at each AGAGE station. Note that each station is plotted with a different y axis range. Shading represents the 16th to 84th percentiles of the posterior model-measurement uncertainty distributions derived in the inversion. Black circles indicate the baseline values derived at each month.

References Powered by Scopus

Weak convergence and optimal scaling of random walk Metropolis algorithms

1091Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A history of chemically and radiatively important gases in air deduced from ALE/GAGE/AGAGE

569Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Accounting for uncertainty in ecological analysis: The strengths and limitations of hierarchical statistical modeling

438Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Assessment of Eco-friendly Gases for Electrical Insulation to Replace the Most Potent Industrial Greenhouse Gas SF<inf>6</inf>

335Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Satellite observations of atmospheric methane and their value for quantifying methane emissions

266Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Role of atmospheric oxidation in recent methane growth

246Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Ganesan, A. L., Rigby, M., Zammit-Mangion, A., Manning, A. J., Prinn, R. G., Fraser, P. J., … Weiss, R. F. (2014). Characterization of uncertainties in atmospheric trace gas inversions using hierarchical Bayesian methods. Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, 14(8), 3855–3864. https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-14-3855-2014

Readers over time

‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2405101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 32

49%

Researcher 24

37%

Professor / Associate Prof. 9

14%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Earth and Planetary Sciences 22

37%

Environmental Science 22

37%

Chemistry 11

18%

Physics and Astronomy 5

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0