气候变化领域集成服务门户(CCPortal): Why do inverse models disagree? A case study with two European CO(2 )inversions

CCPortal

DOI	10.5194/acp-23-2813-2023
	Why do inverse models disagree? A case study with two European CO(2 )inversions
	Munassar, Saqr; Monteil, Guillaume; Scholze, Marko; Karstens, Ute; Roedenbeck, Christian; Koch, Frank-Thomas; Totsche, Kai U.; Gerbig, Christoph
发表日期	2023
ISSN	1680-7316
EISSN	1680-7324
起始页码	2813
结束页码	2828
卷号	23 期号:4 页码:16
英文摘要	We present an analysis of atmospheric transport impact on estimating CO2 fluxes using two atmospheric inversion systems (CarboScope-Regional (CSR) and Lund University Modular Inversion Algorithm (LUMIA)) over Europe in 2018. The main focus of this study is to quantify the dominant drivers of spread amid CO2 estimates derived from atmospheric tracer inversions. The Lagrangian transport models STILT (Stochastic Time-Inverted Lagrangian Transport) and FLEXPART (FLEXible PARTicle) were used to assess the impact of mesoscale transport. The impact of lateral boundary conditions for CO2 was assessed by using two different estimates from the global inversion systems CarboScope (TM3) and TM5-4DVAR. CO2 estimates calculated with an ensemble of eight inversions differing in the regional and global transport models, as well as the inversion systems, show a relatively large spread for the annual fluxes, ranging between -0.72 and 0.20 PgC yr(-1), which is larger than the a priori uncertainty of 0.47 PgC yr(-1). The discrepancies in annual budget are primarily caused by differences in the mesoscale transport model (0.51 PgC yr(-1)), in comparison with 0.23 and 0.10 PgC yr(-1) that resulted from the far-field contributions and the inversion systems, respectively. Additionally, varying the mesoscale transport caused large discrepancies in spatial and temporal patterns, while changing the lateral boundary conditions led to more homogeneous spatial and temporal impact. We further investigated the origin of the discrepancies between transport models. The meteorological forcing parameters (forecasts versus reanalysis obtained from ECMWF data products) used to drive the transport models are responsible for a small part of the differences in CO2 estimates, but the largest impact seems to come from the transport model schemes. Although a good convergence in the differences between the inversion systems was achieved by applying a strict protocol of using identical prior fluxes and atmospheric datasets, there was a non-negligible impact arising from applying a different inversion system. Specifically, the choice of prior error structure accounted for a large part of system-to-system differences.
学科领域	Environmental Sciences; Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
语种	英语
WOS研究方向	Environmental Sciences & Ecology ; Meteorology & Atmospheric Sciences
WOS记录号	WOS:000942296100001
来源期刊	ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS
文献类型	期刊论文
条目标识符	http://gcip.llas.ac.cn/handle/2XKMVOVA/273662
作者单位	Max Planck Society; Lund University; Lund University; Deutscher Wetterdienst; Friedrich Schiller University of Jena
推荐引用方式 GB/T 7714	Munassar, Saqr,Monteil, Guillaume,Scholze, Marko,et al. Why do inverse models disagree? A case study with two European CO(2 )inversions[J],2023,23(4):16.
APA	Munassar, Saqr.,Monteil, Guillaume.,Scholze, Marko.,Karstens, Ute.,Roedenbeck, Christian.,...&Gerbig, Christoph.(2023).Why do inverse models disagree? A case study with two European CO(2 )inversions.ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS,23(4),16.
MLA	Munassar, Saqr,et al."Why do inverse models disagree? A case study with two European CO(2 )inversions".ATMOSPHERIC CHEMISTRY AND PHYSICS 23.4(2023):16.