PMIF v1.0: assessing the potential of satellite observations to constrain CO<sub>2</sub> emissions from large cities and point sources over the globe using synthetic data

Wang, Yilong; Broquet, Grégoire; Bréon, François-Marie; Lespinas, Franck; Buchwitz, Michael; Reuter, Maximilian; Meijer, Yasjka; Loescher, Armin; Janssens-Maenhout, Greet; Zheng, Bo; Ciais, Philippe

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5813-2020

Articles | Volume 13, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5813-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-5813-2020

© Author(s) 2020. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 11

Model description paper

|

26 Nov 2020

Model description paper |

| 26 Nov 2020

PMIF v1.0: assessing the potential of satellite observations to constrain CO₂ emissions from large cities and point sources over the globe using synthetic data

Yilong Wang, Grégoire Broquet, François-Marie Bréon, Franck Lespinas, Michael Buchwitz, Maximilian Reuter, Yasjka Meijer, Armin Loescher, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Bo Zheng, and Philippe Ciais

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Nov 2020)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 02 Jan 2020)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

AC1: 'Revise Acknowledgement section', Yilong Wang, 23 Jan 2020
RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Feb 2020
- AC1: 'Revise Acknowledgement section', Yilong Wang, 23 Jan 2020
- AC2: 'Response to comments', Yilong Wang, 24 Jul 2020
RC2: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Feb 2020
- AC1: 'Revise Acknowledgement section', Yilong Wang, 23 Jan 2020
- AC3: 'Response to comments', Yilong Wang, 24 Jul 2020

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Yilong Wang on behalf of the Authors (24 Jul 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (11 Aug 2020) by Havala Pye

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (12 Aug 2020)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

The authors have addressed some of my comments but there are remaining issues that, in my opinion, need to be addressed.

First, as I mentioned in my initial review, the title is misleading. The work does not address fossil fuel emissions and claiming otherwise is disingenuous. Much of the work they cited used additional measurements to distinguish the sources. Further, this is a synthetic data study and, as the authors mention in their response, the package was developed to do OSSEs. It *can* be used for inversions, but that is not what was done. There are numerous confounding factors that need to be taken into account when doing flux inversions with real satellite data that have not been addressed here. I would strongly prefer a title that more accurately represents what was done. Something to the effect of: "PMIF v1.0: assessing the potential of satellite observations to constrain high resolution synthetic CO2 emissions over the globe".

The explanation of what the authors are actually doing still needs improvement. In particular, the nomenclature of Section 2.7.2 must be improved. This is the section that explains much of what the algorithm is actually doing. This seems critical for publication in GMD, as GMD is focused on model development and I'm doubtful that readers will be able to follow this. It is currently difficult to even follow what the variables represent. Variables seem to arise out of nowhere and then don't seem to be used. For example, the definition of "a_{spt,i,j}(k)" and "b_{spt,i,j}(k)" seems to be the diagonal elements of "\mathbf{A}_{spt,i,j}(k)" and "\mathbf{B}_{spt,i,j}(k)", respectively, but I'm not actually sure from the text. Then "a_{spt,i,j}(k)" and "b_{spt,i,j}(k)" don't seem to be used after they are defined. I'd assumed the authors were using boldface capital variables to denote matrices, but Eq 8 suggests that "\mathbf{M}^T_{I,J,k}\hat{\mathbf{R}^{-1}_{I,J,k}\mathbf{M}_{I,J,k}" is actually a scalar. Otherwise I'm not sure how the matrix on the right is formed. The authors sometimes have "k" as a subscript but other times it is in parentheses. All of this makes the work extremely difficult to follow. Giving more description to "\mathbf{M}^T_{I,J,k}\hat{\mathbf{R}^{-1}_{I,J,k}\mathbf{M}_{I,J,k}" and consistent subscriptng would be useful.

Line 389: Authors should change "proven" to "show". Proven implies a mathematical proof, which has not been done.

Hide

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (22 Aug 2020) by Havala Pye

AR by Yilong Wang on behalf of the Authors (20 Sep 2020) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (28 Sep 2020) by Havala Pye

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (29 Sep 2020)

ED: Publish as is (08 Oct 2020) by Havala Pye

AR by Yilong Wang on behalf of the Authors (09 Oct 2020) Manuscript

PMIF v1.0: assessing the potential of satellite observations to constrain CO2 emissions from large cities and point sources over the globe using synthetic data

Download

Interactive discussion

Peer-review completion

PMIF v1.0: assessing the potential of satellite observations to constrain CO₂ emissions from large cities and point sources over the globe using synthetic data