Comparing Point Source CO2 Emission Rate Estimates From Near‐Simultaneous OCO‐3 and EMIT Observations

Abstract Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from combustion sources are uncertain in many places across the globe. Here, we estimate CO2 emission rates from a small number of collocated observations from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory‐3 (OCO‐3) and the Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (E...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: R. R. Nelson, D. H. Cusworth, A. K. Thorpe, J. Kim, C. D. Elder, R. Nassar, J.‐P. Mastrogiacomo
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2024-12-01
Series:Geophysical Research Letters
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL113002
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1849468189908402176
author R. R. Nelson
D. H. Cusworth
A. K. Thorpe
J. Kim
C. D. Elder
R. Nassar
J.‐P. Mastrogiacomo
author_facet R. R. Nelson
D. H. Cusworth
A. K. Thorpe
J. Kim
C. D. Elder
R. Nassar
J.‐P. Mastrogiacomo
author_sort R. R. Nelson
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from combustion sources are uncertain in many places across the globe. Here, we estimate CO2 emission rates from a small number of collocated observations from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory‐3 (OCO‐3) and the Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT), both onboard the International Space Station (ISS). These near‐simultaneous measurements allow for an unprecedented comparison of two unique space‐based CO2 sensors over both isolated coal‐fired power plants and multi‐source scenes in China. We estimate CO2 emission rates using integrated mass enhancement and a Gaussian plume model. Where validation data is available, 15 of the 19 estimated emission rates have errors less than 37%. For the multi‐source scenes, EMIT can estimate emissions from individual facilities but its aggregate emissions are 42% lower than OCO‐3, likely because it cannot detect small sources or diffuse emissions. OCO‐3, with its excellent precision, may better constrain CO2 emissions over the entire scene.
format Article
id doaj-art-0d7d7ebed11a43cc907080a4b7cc8cf3
institution Kabale University
issn 0094-8276
1944-8007
language English
publishDate 2024-12-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series Geophysical Research Letters
spelling doaj-art-0d7d7ebed11a43cc907080a4b7cc8cf32025-08-20T03:25:55ZengWileyGeophysical Research Letters0094-82761944-80072024-12-015123n/an/a10.1029/2024GL113002Comparing Point Source CO2 Emission Rate Estimates From Near‐Simultaneous OCO‐3 and EMIT ObservationsR. R. Nelson0D. H. Cusworth1A. K. Thorpe2J. Kim3C. D. Elder4R. Nassar5J.‐P. Mastrogiacomo6Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA USACarbon Mapper Pasadena CA USAJet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA USACarbon Mapper Pasadena CA USAJet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena CA USAEnvironment and Climate Change Canada Toronto ON CanadaUniversity of Toronto Toronto ON CanadaAbstract Carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from combustion sources are uncertain in many places across the globe. Here, we estimate CO2 emission rates from a small number of collocated observations from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory‐3 (OCO‐3) and the Earth Surface Mineral Dust Source Investigation (EMIT), both onboard the International Space Station (ISS). These near‐simultaneous measurements allow for an unprecedented comparison of two unique space‐based CO2 sensors over both isolated coal‐fired power plants and multi‐source scenes in China. We estimate CO2 emission rates using integrated mass enhancement and a Gaussian plume model. Where validation data is available, 15 of the 19 estimated emission rates have errors less than 37%. For the multi‐source scenes, EMIT can estimate emissions from individual facilities but its aggregate emissions are 42% lower than OCO‐3, likely because it cannot detect small sources or diffuse emissions. OCO‐3, with its excellent precision, may better constrain CO2 emissions over the entire scene.https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL113002OCO‐3EMITcarbon dioxidepower plant CO2 emissionssnapshot area mapping mode
spellingShingle R. R. Nelson
D. H. Cusworth
A. K. Thorpe
J. Kim
C. D. Elder
R. Nassar
J.‐P. Mastrogiacomo
Comparing Point Source CO2 Emission Rate Estimates From Near‐Simultaneous OCO‐3 and EMIT Observations
Geophysical Research Letters
OCO‐3
EMIT
carbon dioxide
power plant CO2 emissions
snapshot area mapping mode
title Comparing Point Source CO2 Emission Rate Estimates From Near‐Simultaneous OCO‐3 and EMIT Observations
title_full Comparing Point Source CO2 Emission Rate Estimates From Near‐Simultaneous OCO‐3 and EMIT Observations
title_fullStr Comparing Point Source CO2 Emission Rate Estimates From Near‐Simultaneous OCO‐3 and EMIT Observations
title_full_unstemmed Comparing Point Source CO2 Emission Rate Estimates From Near‐Simultaneous OCO‐3 and EMIT Observations
title_short Comparing Point Source CO2 Emission Rate Estimates From Near‐Simultaneous OCO‐3 and EMIT Observations
title_sort comparing point source co2 emission rate estimates from near simultaneous oco 3 and emit observations
topic OCO‐3
EMIT
carbon dioxide
power plant CO2 emissions
snapshot area mapping mode
url https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL113002
work_keys_str_mv AT rrnelson comparingpointsourceco2emissionrateestimatesfromnearsimultaneousoco3andemitobservations
AT dhcusworth comparingpointsourceco2emissionrateestimatesfromnearsimultaneousoco3andemitobservations
AT akthorpe comparingpointsourceco2emissionrateestimatesfromnearsimultaneousoco3andemitobservations
AT jkim comparingpointsourceco2emissionrateestimatesfromnearsimultaneousoco3andemitobservations
AT cdelder comparingpointsourceco2emissionrateestimatesfromnearsimultaneousoco3andemitobservations
AT rnassar comparingpointsourceco2emissionrateestimatesfromnearsimultaneousoco3andemitobservations
AT jpmastrogiacomo comparingpointsourceco2emissionrateestimatesfromnearsimultaneousoco3andemitobservations