Articles | Volume 16, issue 7
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1997-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-1997-2023
Development and technical paper
 | 
12 Apr 2023
Development and technical paper |  | 12 Apr 2023

A machine learning emulator for Lagrangian particle dispersion model footprints: a case study using NAME

Elena Fillola, Raul Santos-Rodriguez, Alistair Manning, Simon O'Doherty, and Matt Rigby

Related authors

Global Emissions and Abundances of Chemically and Radiatively Important Trace Gases from the AGAGE Network
Luke M. Western, Matthew Rigby, Jens Mühle, Paul B. Krummel, Chris R. Lunder, Simon O'Doherty, Stefan Reimann, Martin K. Vollmer, Dickon Young, Ben Adam, Paul J. Fraser, Anita L. Ganesan, Christina M. Harth, Ove Hermansen, Jooil Kim, Ray L. Langenfelds, Zoë M. Loh, Blagoj Mitrevski, Joseph R. Pitt, Peter K. Salameh, Roland Schmidt, Kieran Stanley, Ann R. Stavert, Hsiang-Jui Wang, Ray F. Weiss, and Ronald G. Prinn
Earth Syst. Sci. Data Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-348,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-348, 2025
Preprint under review for ESSD
Short summary
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024: annual update of key indicators of the state of the climate system and human influence
Piers M. Forster, Chris Smith, Tristram Walsh, William F. Lamb, Robin Lamboll, Christophe Cassou, Mathias Hauser, Zeke Hausfather, June-Yi Lee, Matthew D. Palmer, Karina von Schuckmann, Aimée B. A. Slangen, Sophie Szopa, Blair Trewin, Jeongeun Yun, Nathan P. Gillett, Stuart Jenkins, H. Damon Matthews, Krishnan Raghavan, Aurélien Ribes, Joeri Rogelj, Debbie Rosen, Xuebin Zhang, Myles Allen, Lara Aleluia Reis, Robbie M. Andrew, Richard A. Betts, Alex Borger, Jiddu A. Broersma, Samantha N. Burgess, Lijing Cheng, Pierre Friedlingstein, Catia M. Domingues, Marco Gambarini, Thomas Gasser, Johannes Gütschow, Masayoshi Ishii, Christopher Kadow, John Kennedy, Rachel E. Killick, Paul B. Krummel, Aurélien Liné, Didier P. Monselesan, Colin Morice, Jens Mühle, Vaishali Naik, Glen P. Peters, Anna Pirani, Julia Pongratz, Jan C. Minx, Matthew Rigby, Robert Rohde, Abhishek Savita, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Peter Thorne, Christopher Wells, Luke M. Western, Guido R. van der Werf, Susan E. Wijffels, Valérie Masson-Delmotte, and Panmao Zhai
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 2641–2680, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-2641-2025, 2025
Short summary
A thousand inversions to determine European SF6 emissions from 2005 to 2021
Martin Vojta, Andreas Plach, Rona L. Thompson, Pallav Purohit, Kieran Stanley, Simon O’Doherty, Dickon Young, Joe Pitt, Xin Lan, and Andreas Stohl
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1095,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1095, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics (ACP).
Short summary
How reliable are process-based 222radon emission maps? Results from an atmospheric 222radon inversion in Europe
Fabian Maier, Eva Falge, Maksym Gachkivskyi, Stephan Henne, Ute Karstens, Dafina Kikaj, Ingeborg Levin, Alistair Manning, Christian Rödenbeck, and Christoph Gerbig
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-477,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-477, 2025
Short summary
Direct high-precision radon quantification for interpreting high-frequency greenhouse gas measurements
Dafina Kikaj, Edward Chung, Alan D. Griffiths, Scott D. Chambers, Grant Forster, Angelina Wenger, Penelope Pickers, Chris Rennick, Simon O'Doherty, Joseph Pitt, Kieran Stanley, Dickon Young, Leigh S. Fleming, Karina Adcock, Emmal Safi, and Tim Arnold
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 18, 151–175, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-151-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-18-151-2025, 2025
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
The sensitivity of aerosol data assimilation to vertical profiles: case study of dust storm assimilation with LOTOS-EUROS v2.2
Mijie Pang, Jianbing Jin, Ting Yang, Xi Chen, Arjo Segers, Batjargal Buyantogtokh, Yixuan Gu, Jiandong Li, Hai Xiang Lin, Hong Liao, and Wei Han
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3781–3798, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3781-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3781-2025, 2025
Short summary
Knowledge-inspired fusion strategies for the inference of PM2.5 values with a neural network
Matthieu Dabrowski, José Mennesson, Jérôme Riedi, Chaabane Djeraba, and Pierre Nabat
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3707–3733, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3707-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3707-2025, 2025
Short summary
Tuning the ICON-A 2.6.4 climate model with machine-learning-based emulators and history matching
Pauline Bonnet, Lorenzo Pastori, Mierk Schwabe, Marco Giorgetta, Fernando Iglesias-Suarez, and Veronika Eyring
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3681–3706, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3681-2025, 2025
Short summary
A novel method for quantifying the contribution of regional transport to PM2.5 in Beijing (2013–2020): combining machine learning with concentration-weighted trajectory analysis
Kang Hu, Hong Liao, Dantong Liu, Jianbing Jin, Lei Chen, Siyuan Li, Yangzhou Wu, Changhao Wu, Shitong Zhao, Xiaotong Jiang, Ping Tian, Kai Bi, Ye Wang, and Delong Zhao
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3623–3634, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3623-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3623-2025, 2025
Short summary
Quantification of CO2 hotspot emissions from OCO-3 SAM CO2 satellite images using deep learning methods
Joffrey Dumont Le Brazidec, Pierre Vanderbecken, Alban Farchi, Grégoire Broquet, Gerrit Kuhlmann, and Marc Bocquet
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3607–3622, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3607-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3607-2025, 2025
Short summary

Cited articles

Bergamaschi, P., Karstens, U., Manning, A. J., Saunois, M., Tsuruta, A., Berchet, A., Vermeulen, A. T., Arnold, T., Janssens-Maenhout, G., Hammer, S., Levin, I., Schmidt, M., Ramonet, M., Lopez, M., Lavric, J., Aalto, T., Chen, H., Feist, D. G., Gerbig, C., Haszpra, L., Hermansen, O., Manca, G., Moncrieff, J., Meinhardt, F., Necki, J., Galkowski, M., O'Doherty, S., Paramonova, N., Scheeren, H. A., Steinbacher, M., and Dlugokencky, E.: Inverse modelling of European CH4 emissions during 2006–2012 using different inverse models and reassessed atmospheric observations, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 901–920, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-901-2018, 2018. a
Brown, P., Cardenas, L., Choudrie, S., Jones, L., Karagianni, E., MacCarthy, J., Passant, N., Richmond, B., Smith, H., Thistlethwaite, G., Thomson, A., Turtle, L., and Wakeling, D.: UK Greenhouse Gas Inventory, 1990 to 2018: Annual Report for Submission under the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Tech. Rep., Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy, 978-0-9933975-6-1, https://naei.beis.gov.uk/reports/reports?report_id=998 (last access: 28 March 2023), 2020. a
Butz, A., Galli, A., Hasekamp, O., Landgraf, J., Tol, P., and Aben, I.: TROPOMI aboard Sentinel-5 Precursor: Prospective performance of CH4 retrievals for aerosol and cirrus loaded atmospheres, Remote Sens. Environ., 120, 267–276, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2011.05.030, 2012. a
Cartwright, L., Zammit-Mangion, A., and Deutscher, N. M.: Emulation of greenhouse-gas sensitivities using variational autoencoders, Environmetrics, 34, e2754, https://doi.org/10.1002/env.2754, 2023. a, b
Chicco, D., Warrens, M. J., and Jurman, G.: The coefficient of determination R-squared is more informative than SMAPE, MAE, MAPE, MSE and RMSE in regression analysis evaluation, PeerJ Computer Science, 7, e623, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj-cs.623, 2021. a
Download
Short summary
Lagrangian particle dispersion models are used extensively for the estimation of greenhouse gas (GHG) fluxes using atmospheric observations. However, these models do not scale well as data volumes increase. Here, we develop a proof-of-concept machine learning emulator that can produce outputs similar to those of the dispersion model, but 50 000 times faster, using only meteorological inputs. This works demonstrates the potential of machine learning to accelerate GHG estimations across the globe.
Share