the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modelling extensive green roof CO2 exchanges in the TEB urban canopy model
Abstract. Green roofs are promoted to provide ecosystem services and to mitigate climate change in urban areas. This is largely due to their supposed benefits for biodiversity, rainwater management, evaporative cooling, and carbon sequestration. One scientific challenge is quantifying the various contributions of green roofs using reliable methods. In this context, the green roof module already running in the Town Energy Balance urban canopy model for water and energy exchanges was improved by implementing the CO2 fluxes and the carbon sequestration potential. This parametrisation combines the ISBA (Interaction Between Soil Biosphere and Atmosphere) photosynthesis, biomass and soil respiration module with the green roof module in order to quantify the net CO2 amount emitted or fixed by the green roof over a time period. The parametrisation was fully achieved by using data of an extensive Sedum non irrigated green roof located at the Berlin BER airport in Germany from 2016 to 2020. The five years of measurements were used to do a sensitivity analysis of the photosynthesis module parameters in order to classify the parameters according to their influence, followed by a calibration over the most important parameters and evaluation. Results show a good agreement of the simulated leaf area index and CO2 fluxes with in situ observations, with good diurnal, seasonal and inter-annual variability, even if the model tends to be overly responsive on the day to day variability. The model reproduces well the Net Ecosystem Exchange which provides a reliable estimation of the annual carbon sequestration. Those results are encouraging in quantifying the potential of carbon sequestration of green roofs and open up the possibility of applying the new parametrisation on a city-wide scale to evaluate green roof scenarios.
- Preprint
(7866 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 05 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on gmd-2024-233', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Feb 2025
reply
This paper presents the integration of the CO2 fluxes calculations in the TEB green roof model. This manuscript is already in very good conditions regarding its model implementation and testing and should be accepted after the subsequent revisions which are still considered substantial. In particular, more information should be provided on the implications of choices made in the parameterisation of the green roof scheme. The discussion section should be entirely rewritten and more comparison to the existing literature should be perpetrated. More detailed comments can be found below.
1. Regarding the introduction, you should provide more background on the different green roofs models that exist in the urban climate modelling field. You should also provide more background on the variety of applications that these models can have, list the ones that do have a CO2 implementation and comment on how the TEB model compares to other ones previously used for other types of studies. We need to better understand why you implement this CO2 fluxes scheme in TEB more than in another existing model.
2. Please define the two types of upwelling and downwelling radiations for non expert audiences.
3. Could you please detail slightly more what sort of photograph analysis is performed? Does it compare to other remote sensing techniques for flagging green roofs or quantifying LAI? Why is this useful for your moelling and what are the implications of potential uncertainties?
4. Explain the choice for using TN and TX naming. Can you use more easily interpretable anagrams?
Figure 1. The area covered by the green roof seems very large. Could you provide some more information on how that green roof surface compares to other green roofs in the city, in Germany and maybe even in Europe? Why does that make it an interesting case study? If it is just related to accessibility to data records, then say it. An aerial imagery would also be greatly welcomed.
Figure 2. Please prevent from using double Y axes. Separate the plot in two. Why do you use maximum and minimum over average temperatures? Where are these values recorded? Is it at the station on top of the roof or a local nearby AWS? If it is on top of the roof, what are the implications of the height at which records were made for your model parameterisation/evaluation (depending on how you use them)?
Lines 94 to 107 are somewhat of a repetition to the introduction. Can't you provide more details on how these model are distinct from other existing models? What are their pros and cons? You can keep the subsequent model description with equations that is very useful. Maybe you would like to put this in the supplemetary material and only relate certain equations to the calculation of CO2 fluxes which you describe later in section 3.3?
Line 175. Models* Check for typos across the manuscript.
Lines 219 to 220. What are the implications of such reccurent forcing? I would like the authors to test for the influence on meteorological forcing since urban climate models are typically not forced every 30 minutes but more usually at 3-hourly or 6-hourly timesteps -- sometimes hourly for very specific cases.
Line 230. So the sensor is located at 20 meters. How is your model expected to behave in a "2-dimensional" model? Please provide information on how the temperature is interpolated to the roof level within the 6 vertical layers. If it relies on 2m air temperature, then what are the implications?
Section 5.1 and 5.2. Is this sensitivity analysis really necessary for a non-expert audience? Can't you sum it up and provide the details in the appendix?
Line 340 to 341. What do you mean here? How was this information integrated in the model and how did that influence the outcome of your study? How are observations consistent with the LAI and Fveg observations? Can you discretise your observations based on these parameters (e.g., through seasonality)? We would need to better understand whether the observed LAI and Fveg served for the parameterisation of the model or simply its evaluation. In both cases we need to be provided with more information on the way in which this data was gathered. Visual inspection is not sufficient. This questions the validity of this data. Also, we need to understand in more details what are the implications of accurately modelling the LAI for the CO2 fluxes calculations. Since you have observations in Figure 7 about CO2 fluxes, why do you need to evaluate this intermediate step? If you can't maybe just say that the model is right but that a limitation is that you don't know whether it is right for the right reasons or not.
Figure 8 and its description should be moved to the results section. An explanation of the reason for this analysis should also be provided in the methods.
Figure 9 should also be provided in the results and not in the discussion. The discussion should discuss the results against other literature outcomes and try to explain the outcomes of this study based on current knowledge.
In general, the whole discussion section should be restructured and rewritten. The comparison to existing literature and models is critically lacking.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-233-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
125 | 26 | 8 | 159 | 6 | 6 |
- HTML: 125
- PDF: 26
- XML: 8
- Total: 159
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1