C40 CITIES CLIMATE LEADERSHIP GROUP

......

-·· . ..,._

~<) :~-,_, ·--..,..t'""°ot Cltl..1 • • • IIOSMIIU

••

•

• ~ ";"' e ll(N; COii.

· - ~ t • IIQ( .. tut\;r

• History

• Motivation

• Project concept

- Vision

- Key elements

- Notional architecture

• Opportunities & Challenges

• Topics and workshop approach

2

• 2008 1st Greenhouse Gas Information System workshop (DOE/NOAA/NASA)

• 2009 1st GHGIS/ICOS meeting (US/Europe) - megacities discussions start

• 2010

- NRC report on greenhouse gas verification

- KISS workshop on Quantifying Sources and Sinks of C02

- NIST GHG Quantification and Verification workshop

- NASA Carbon Monitoring System (congressional mandate)

- CARB/NOAA Calnex campaign

- ANR MEGAPARIS project

• 2011

- 1st & 2nd Megacities workshops (LA/JPL & Paris/AIRPARIF)

- NIST INFLUX experiment {Indianapolis)

Also, related studies by Wofsy et al in Boston, Salt Lake City, etc

3

-...... -

•

•

kton C02 er nd cell 0 0.01

0.01 0.1 0.1 1

1 5 5 10

10 25 25 50 50 75 75 100

100 150 150 200 200

Relevance: Cities matter 75% of global fossil-fuel C02

• _ _, . The 50 Largest Cities, C40 Cities, and Top 10 GHG Effittinq cit iest

1. China: 11192 l. USA: 7,107

2. India: 916 2. China: 4.058 -3. SO La rqest C ltl es: 500 13. 50 L.arqest Cit ies : 2;606

4. C40 C ltles : 393 4. C40 Cit ies : 2,364

EC-JRC/PBL. EDGAR version 5. USA: 301 I s. Russian Federation~ 2,193

6 . Indonesia: 190 6. Japan: 1,374

1. Bra2il: 159 1 7. Top 10 ·GHG Ci t ies: 1,367

8. Russi an Federation: 142 8 . India: 1,214

9. Top 10 GHG Cit ies: 136 9. Germany: 956

10. Japan: 128 10. canada: 747

1. USA: 14,20 4

2. so Larqest Cit ies: 91564

I 3 . C40 Cities : 8,781

4 . China: 7,903

5. Japan: 4 ,354

6. Top 10 GHG Cities : 4,313

7. tndia: 3,388

8. Germany: 2,925

9. Russian Federation: 2,288

10. United Kingdom: 2.176

Source: Cities and Climate Change: an urgent agenda , World Bank, 2010

Calgary Lon.don l Berlin • Moscow Port Moody • • Toronto Montreal Paris • • • Warsaw . l f Geneva • • Kopriv nica Seoul

Ch 1cago • 4L N~ York . Madrid . • • • Istanbul Beijing . I Los Angeles • '- L,.ttl RPhilkadelphiaB I J Athe nsf Jerusalem Gwalior • •. Tokyo

• e oc arceona C . Delhi-, 1 Sh h · L Houston • Miami Rome air~ • '-1 ang. a ,• Kyoto

M . c· D b Karachi • • Hanoi • Taipei ex1co 11}' Nioro du Rip ur an Mumbai • Dhaka • T Hong Kong

• Caracas • Chennai • • Bangkok •

Bogota . Lagos Addis Ababa • • Entebbe

Garissa • Manaus • Lima . Jakarta

http://live.c40cities.org/

Tr Rio de Janerio c_Curitiba

• Sao Paulo Buenos Aires

• An ta na na rivo 111-Pretoria LJohannesburg

• • Sydney

• Both with Stabilization - Green LA Plan (2007)

-

• 35% (vs 1990) by 2030

Paris Climate Plan {2007)

• 25% (vs 2004) by 2020

Melbourne

and Growth • •

Global urbanization will double by 2050 Explosive growth in developing megacities

population >4%/year

emissions >10%/year

,.

...

Pragmatism: measuring C0 2 from cities is more tractable than countries

• •

I

-..

C02 at local scales is more intense than at larger scales

Hestia, 1 km a Vulcan, 10 km CDIAC, 100 km

• •

f' • -

•

Right: Gridded annual fossil fuel C02 emissions from a medium-size city (Indianapolis) show distinct gradients

•

at different spatial scales. Right: CDIAC 2006 emissions for the CON US plotted on a 1 ° ("'100 km) show avg flux 200-600 gC/m2/yr . Middle: Vulcan 2002 emissions for the "'10,000 km2 area centered on Indianapolis on a 10 km grid. Left: Hestia 2002 emissions for the urban core on a 1 km grid. The Vulcan and Hestia plots use log-normal scales (typically >20,000 gC/m2/yr).

-

I

I

I I I I

,,1J! ,III II

f='-t flllrf f lltJlll\ UL i.g SAO PAULO

• •

4 1s a so 1m ortant

June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former U.S. President Bill Clinton urged cities and the World Bank to work on curbing methane emissions from landfills and charcoal,

saying those steps first would buy time in the fight against global warming.

Politicians may need years to work out a way to limit the carbon dioxide produced

by burning fossil fuels, and it would cheaper and quicker to focus on other

gases first, Clinton said at the C40 meeting of mayors from the world's largest cities in Sao Paulo today. Methane has 25 times the global warming impact of

carbon dioxide ...

Hsu et al Atma Environ, 2010

Comparison of estimated LA County anthropogenic GI 4 inventories.

- majo, roads $ dairies 2000 Met hods MMT C0 2 E year - 1 Notes

oil wells O landfills l><I wastewater treatment plants o gas-to.ene rgy facilities

point sources -=-=~=- -=p<J:-::~=-co -=--=--=-=-=-=-=---=....,.,,=";} ___,

~ •. I - / I

I 1950

1900

(') J: " . "'O "'O er <

CH.i to CO scaling measured. at Mt . Wilson 4.2 ± o.12 a Estimate CARB CH.i inventory 3.0 IPCC methods

a Note that the estimated GI 4 emissions uncertainty reflects only the error in the slope determination from the regression between CH4 and CO mixing ratios. Additional uncertainty due to LA County CO emissions should be considered (see Equation (2 )): however, this value is currently not available .

See also:

:_4 ______ ~. _:,,-....___, W1111cl1, D., P. 0. We1u1berg, G. C. Toon, G. Keppel-Aleks, and Y. G. Yavin (2009), Emissions of greenhouse gases from a No1th American megacity, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15810, doi:10.1029/2009GL039825.

Peischel et al 2010, Calnex, LA CH4

1850

Townse11d-S1nall, A , S.C. Tyler, D.E. Pataki, X.X11, L. E. Christensen, Isotopic meast1rements of atmosphe1ic methane in Los Angeles, Califo11tia, US A : Influence of "ft1gitive" fossil ft1el e1nissions J Geophys Res 117, 00730 8, doi: 10.1029/2011JD016826 , 2012

K11c> T.~ Roza.nski K.~ Zitnnoch, M. · Neeld J. M.~ Ko1us A. Ant1n·opogenic emi.ssions of C02 and CH4 in an 11rban environment, Appl . Energy 2003 75 (3-4), 193-2 03.

• The ultimate impacts of local mitigation actions cannot yet be verified - Inventories of GHGs provide bottom-up estimates based on activity data - Reported annual uncertainties range from modest (5%) to large (>50%) - No direct attribution of atmospheric C02 or CH4 to a given entity

• Over the time-span of emission policies (10+ years), these uncertainties can exceed the expected trend (lO's of%)

• In the absence of better measures, we don't know if our actions are adequate or cost-effective

• Better data and modeling have the potential to improve the measures that tell us if our local actions are making a difference

• However, we are still grounded in exploratory science mode - Methodological studies have not yet addressed complex megacities - Evolving capability in instrumentation (surface, air, and satellites) - Perhaps 20 years away from transition to an operational capability at this rate

8

The U.S. National Research Council recognized the

need to focus on urban domes (NRC, Pacala et al 2010)

''Recommendation. Extend the international atmospheric

sampling network: To research the atmospheric domes of

greenhouse gases over a representative sample of large

local emitters, such as cities and power plants,

This research initiative would yield data needed to

calibrate satellite measurements of large local emitters,

demonstrate an independent capability to monitor large

local emitters from ground stations and aircraft, and

document long-term shifts in fossil- versus non-fossil-fuel

sources in urban and industrial regions. An initial goal

could be to deploy instruments at a statistical sample of

large emitters (e.g., 5-10).

Our concept starts with LA, Paris, and TBD 3rd city in South America or Asia -and is designed to be expandable

•

ro·ect

A global monitoring system for urban C02 and CH4 will offer actionable information to attribute and evaluate the effects of climate policies

- IF the measurements and analytical methods can be shown to be accurate and cost-effective

- IF they can work reliably in complex ''emissions environments'' (megacities)

• Ultimately, an operational system could consist of:

- High accuracy surface measurements in 20+ representative megacities

- Dense satellite observations of all major cities & other localized sources

- Improved bottom-up emissions modeling

- Analysis to integrate top-down & bottom-up data 7 connecting trends with action

• An international pilot project can bridge between today's methodological studies and that future operational system (initially 3 cities, but expandable)

- Sustained (5+ yr) monitoring to detect trends in emissions

- Demonstrate confidence in mitigation actions by validating their effects

- Build technical and scientific capacity (infrastructure and knowledge)

- Transparent data sharing and comparison to promote confidence and trust

All resting on scientific principles and credibility 10

Vision: towards an operational monitoring system 2010

Existing surface

networks in LA,

Paris, ...

Calnex

(CARB/ NOAA)

Better

Futt.n : ' --1-"rc ~ Based on Curren,-_ Today Trends

Worse Climate Q Change Better u

r I y

WO<Se

2015

Near-term Satellites

CMS (NASA)

Megacities Carbon Pilot (2012-2017)

'

Global Urban

Monitoring System

• UOl'I C02 "' • ( 001

-- .01 0.1 0.1 1

1 • • .. 10] "' ?.>I "' ~· ~

2020 Next generation

satellites

11

ew care u

Los Angeles Paris Sao Paulo (TBD) Beijing/Ti an j in (TB D)

A first step toward forming an international pilot project to:

• Expand the science base necessary to support robust, reliable, and effective GHG determinations for cities,

• Advance the necessary measurement capabilities and scientific knowledge through contributions from all participants,

• Move toward international recognition of standard methodologies to measure and characterize urban GHG domes and quantify their dynamics, and

• Assure those charged with forming GHG mitigation policies globally that a means is available to quantify the performance of those policies.

While being wary of expanding too quickly {walk then run); More on this tomorrow ....

12

N.NEDA Al.PINE

AMADOR BUTTE

CAI.VERAS COLUSA

COHT'AACOSTA DEL NORTE ElOOOAOO

FRESNO GLENN

lfJMBWlT IMl'BIIAI.

IIYO ICEAN

KO<GS W<E

I.ASSEN LOSANGa.ES

MADERA MARIN

MARIPOSA MEJOOCM>

MERCED MODOC

MONO MONTEREY

NAPA NEVADA ORAHGE PUCER PI.\A!AS

RNERSIJE SACRAME>ITO

SANBEWrO SAN SERHAROINO

SANOJEGO SAN FR.ANCISC:O

SAN JOAQUIN SAN LUIS OBISPO

SAN MATEO SANTA BARBARA

S>NrACLARA SANTACRUZ

SIW>TA SIERRA

SISl<IYOU SOLANO SO'<OMA

STANISlAIJS SUTTER TEHAMA TRHJY TUlARE

lUOll.NNE Ve>mJRA

mt.O VU8A

0

C40 CITIES CLIMATE LEADERSHIP GROUP

-• UUICQ( ITY " ,...

.°"""'

•

* * *

----~ * CJ Refining • 8 ectricity Ge'1eration/CHP O Residential O Convnercial • lnduslrial O Agrirultural i;J Transportation

de la Rue du Can, et al (2008}

10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 90,000

""'f'•

.. , ·-- I

' ."""' ·- t

http ://www.c 40 citie1.l>rg/ ;

Notional LA Megacity Observing Network

Existing/planned GHG station EJ New GHG stations OC0-2 ground track

Preliminary and pre-decisional

Megacity Domain (South Coast Air Basin*)

Key observational elements

0.11 . . . . . . . . . : " : : : ...., ' Y ' . ' •

[ 0.12 ":.;fo, : .... ··-~- ..... /r; .... J. ... ... .. . ··i· ............... . ;.... .. . ... 4 -1-......... . • • • • • . . . . .

0.1 c_____;_ ' --~___;;_ __ _.______;_ · __ _,_____;, · __ _.___ .'--------'

Fixed column observations, Wunch et a I, G RL, 2009

Scanning partial column observations from Mt . Wilson

(CLARS, Sander et al)

-

In-situ sensors and flasks

Calnex results, Pasadena,

Newman et al APCD 2012 450 500

a 440

410

b

200

c

3

2

-3 i]; 1

~;:;::::;~ ~++++:::::::j O

.._,.

d 160 8

a 140 ~

::) -§ 120 -

20 24

4.0

3.5

3.0

i 2.5

I 2.0

< 1.S

1.0

0.5

0.0

Airborne observations (Calnex, Wofsy et al 2010)

0 0 0 ll)

0 0 0 st

0 0 0 ~

0

I .,. I ... - \

' ,,

Mean Vertical Distributions of ~C0 2 on 10 flight days over Los Angeles

,('

• { I , . ' :1 ., _.,,. ' ·:., -~-,11r / ,v,

i "- • ... . ' ' ... J • .,,. " . -... .., . /"'=- ,~·- =-·7 . ., .. .,.

' ·-. . ...... / • ~ .a..=.- .... ~ \ - -"'"-.. ...... __ .. , -..

-~ .L..:- 1. . • .._ __ _ :,~ ""'--- :.. . .. ---- - -' --a...• - ~ -.. z:..z.• I - ,,_-

\ . - --- ---- - _.. - ~ - - - - - - - - - -...... - - • ..,,..... - - • ,#- . - " --- _, ;;,.:a ' '\,- · -·· · ~· ·-. . . . . -- _; ,. _____ ...,..._ !,i; ---- .... - , . ................ . ... ..... ..,.. ::::::s:,..,

-- ... _.,_ , w, ,..,,, .. - -~ =----------------------------------

0 5 10 15 20

aC0 2 (ppm)

25

Boundary layer & surface met (after Lu and Turco 1995)

3 2 ••• . . ...... ...... ....... . ....... . ...........

···~·-···... . ....... ' ......... \

• • ' \ . I \ :

\ : ' ' • • ,.. .. ..... ...

0. 10. 20. 30. .co. ,0 . 60. 70. 80. !JO. 100. 110. 120. 130. 140. 1,0. 160. 170.

(b) Dil1IDclc l1ong tbc crou-lCCtion (km)

• Nested tracer transport models

• Observations of boundary conditions •

•••

,.;]: ,

I

0

• ..

• •

.. ~,,- • " I

•' ~r } •

• Space-time resolved C0 2 and CH4 _.· ·03 : wester~~~s_o~a~~ r;:~ ~k~2~~km .

emission data products (Vulcan/ .-· . Hestia, etc)

• Data QC, calibration meta-data, uncertainty quantification

• Attribution and trend analysis

• Validation

• Data sharing and stewardship

• Sustained engagement with stakeholders

)

~ ~ ~

~ Com merc ial ~ Residential ~ lndu stria l

O 105,000 21 0,000 420 ,00 0 Feet <l> <::, <o <::, <:, '!> '1,. ".,· <:,· <:,· (c,· (c,· (c,· (l,·

Log Carb on (kg I year) ... _'~> ,,..<;>' .,":: .,":-' <o'' <o'?' <o<p'

Gurney et al, Gridded (2500m X 2500m) C0 2 emissions 16

• \ ' •

Surface in-situ

C0 2,CH4,CO, others(?)

I -

High-res urban

C0 2/CH 4 emission

data products Vulcan/Hestia

FF DAS

(notional system architecture)

Surface remote PBL profiles & Intensive obs sensed C0 2, CH4 surface met (aircraft and surface

) mobile) .___(c_LA_R_S~& ......... T~CC_O_N __ FT_S_)_ ~---(v_ar_io_u~s~~n-so_r_s---~------~-~------

I ,

...

Data Exchange system -

.,-1·----------'lliii:, / I

• priors

Validation Flux estimates & uncertainties

,7 I

I

I

Satellite obs (GOSAT, MOPITT, OC0-2/-3,MODIS,

OMI) .__ ____ ---t-.,__ __ _

Other cities

Flux estimates & ..------------~~7:......_ ________ ---, ,-----------------, uncertainties

Reported emissions &

uncertainties Urban/regional Inventories

CARB AIRPARIF

Other methods (e.g., tracer-tracer)

Meta-analysis: Attribution and Trend

assessment

Data Exchange system

-

Objectives

Detect net trends in anthropogenic

C0 2 and CH4

emissions from megacities { e.g., 10% over 5 ys) &

link to major

Verify C0 2

emissions from large stationary

• :-,i- , ' r ,~ ~ - -

' '

Detect CH4

leaks from

Different objectives may require different capabilities

Deliverable Products

Top-down spatial maps & net time­series of C0 2 & CH4 30 fields & fluxes, 2km, 6

hour, for megacity

Bottom -up maps and time-series of anthr. C02 & CH4 emissions,

2km, 6 hour, for

Analysis: attribution, trend assessment, and

linkage to inventories and

Required project elements

Surface Network of In-situ trace-gas

'"""' - ' ,- ,, - '

Intensive Campaigns (mobile &

Surface Network of

Remote sensing observations

Modeling systems (flux inversion, non­

inverse flux methods, emission models, &

Transparent data

r--~~~~~~~~~~

High-accuracy, sustained measurement of C0 2, CH41

•

Optima I site location driven by receptor

Periodic measurement of

Sustained measurement

Precision column mixing ratios of C02, CH4, CO

within megacity domains

High resolution ancillary observations of surface

temps, 30 urban '' ""' '' ,, ' 'I -' ' - ', I I ' [- ', I,-, I I I I

• ex1

overlapping interests and capability

CARB (multiple

ercial

eg s arbon

Project

For illustration only; figure is not complete;

overlap is notional

19

• Relevant and responsive to stakeholder needs

• Credibility in the face of relentless scrutiny

- Transparent (data, models, meta-data, UQ, protocols)

- Traceable and calibrated

- Validated

• Sustained commitment multi-year trends - Continuity of critical observations

- Guaranteed access to data

• Project Objectives • Needs for trace gas observations

• Fixed network: How many, locations, which species • Intensive campaigns (surface mobile and airborne) • Satellite observations

• Needs for ABL and surface met observations • Needs for data QC, calibration, & data stewardship • Needs for modeling • Analysis (attribution, trends, linking to actions) • Validation • Integration: bringing it all together • Programmatics

• Project policies: Data sharing, Releasing results/publication • Capacity building mechanisms • International framework for coordination

• Others?

For each topic, consider: how good is good enough? And are there city-unique needs? (quantitative where possible)