Airborne remote sensing and in situ measurements of atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> to quantify point source emissions

Krings, Thomas; Neininger, Bruno; Gerilowski, Konstantin; Krautwurst, Sven; Buchwitz, Michael; Burrows, John P.; Lindemann, Carsten; Ruhtz, Thomas; Schüttemeyer, Dirk; Bovensmann, Heinrich

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-721-2018

Articles | Volume 11, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-721-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-721-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 2

Research article

|

07 Feb 2018

Research article |

| 07 Feb 2018

Airborne remote sensing and in situ measurements of atmospheric CO₂ to quantify point source emissions

Thomas Krings, Bruno Neininger, Konstantin Gerilowski, Sven Krautwurst, Michael Buchwitz, John P. Burrows, Carsten Lindemann, Thomas Ruhtz, Dirk Schüttemeyer, and Heinrich Bovensmann

Download

Final revised paper (published on 07 Feb 2018)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 25 Nov 2016)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Interesting data, but poorly presented and discussed', Anonymous Referee #1, 31 Dec 2016
- AC1: 'Reply to Referee #1', Thomas Krings, 30 Sep 2017
SC1: 'In-situ section', Levi Golston, 22 Jan 2017
- AC2: 'Reply to comment', Thomas Krings, 30 Sep 2017
RC2: 'Review', Christian Frankenberg, 31 Jan 2017
- AC3: 'Reply to Referee #2', Thomas Krings, 30 Sep 2017

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Thomas Krings on behalf of the Authors (30 Sep 2017) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (09 Oct 2017) by Andreas Hofzumahaus

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (23 Oct 2017)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This paper is a large revision from the original submission. It is indeed largely improved both in terms of clarity and presentation. The authors have adequately answered to the reviewers comments. The paper can then be published with little corrections

My only significant comment concerns the plum intermittency. This intermittency is very clearly observed in the in-situ measurements and also on the remote sensing data. This intermittency is probably the largest contributor to the total uncertainty for a the emission estimate from a single track. Arguably, it is a random uncertainty that decreases with the number of samples. As the primary contributor to the uncertainty, there should be more efforts in its quantification.

Abstract : The abstract should include the error estimates, not only the observed differences with “truth”
P10L2 « 200ppm and more ». Figure 2 shows that the plume concentration increase are, in most cases, much less than 200 ppm.
P10L6 « lower background concentration ». Why should one expect lower background concentration towards elevated layers ?
Figure 13 : The Gaussian plume model is valid everywhere, not only on locations where there is a valid measurement. Thus the red line on the figure should be continuous and not with a linear interpolation between data points. Conversely, there is no reason no link the datapoints with a line.
P25L8-10. I could not understand the statement about American power plants as a counter justification for the stability of the PP emission
P26L4. This sentence is linked to the general statement about the intermittency and its impact on the uncertainty. It should attempt at providing quantitative values

Hide

RR by Christian Frankenberg (14 Nov 2017)

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (28 Nov 2017) by Andreas Hofzumahaus

AR by Thomas Krings on behalf of the Authors (20 Dec 2017) Author's response Manuscript

Airborne remote sensing and in situ measurements of atmospheric CO2 to quantify point source emissions

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

Airborne remote sensing and in situ measurements of atmospheric CO₂ to quantify point source emissions