TY - JOUR
T1 - Seasonal Characteristics of Model Uncertainties From Biogenic Fluxes, Transport, and Large-Scale Boundary Inflow in Atmospheric CO2 Simulations Over North America
AU - Feng, Sha
AU - Lauvaux, Thomas
AU - Davis, Kenneth J.
AU - Keller, Klaus
AU - Zhou, Yu
AU - Williams, Christopher
AU - Schuh, Andrew E.
AU - Liu, Junjie
AU - Baker, Ian
N1 - Funding Information:
Primary funding for this research was provided by NASA's Earth Sciences Division as part of the Atmospheric Carbon and Transport (ACT)-America Earth Venture Suborbital mission (grant NNX15AG76G to Penn State). We thank M. P. Butler at the Pennsylvania State University for generating the codes that incorporate the global modeled CO2 mole fractions into the regional model with the conservation of mass (archived at https://github.com/psu-inversion/WRF_boundary_coupling), S. Basu at NOAA ESRL GMD, Boulder, Colorado, United States, for providing TM5 modeled CO2 mole fractions, J. Berner at the National Center for Atmospheric Research for technical support to implement the stochastic kinetic energy backscatter scheme, and S. Biraud for providing the list of AmeriFlux DOIs. The 3-hourly output from Multi-scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP; http://nacp.ornl.gov/MsTMIP.shtml) can be found the Modeling and Synthesis Thematic Data Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL; http://nacp.ornl.gov). CarbonTracker CT2016 results were provided by NOAA ESRL, Boulder, Colorado, United States, from the website at http://carbontracker.noaa.gov. A set of GEOS-Chem simulated CO2 mole fractions are provided by NASA Carbon Monitoring System (https://carbon.nasa.gov/). The CO2 mole fraction data used in this work were prepared by the in situ tower and aircraft programs at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. The data set was archived in obspack_co2_1_GLOBALVIEWplus_v3.1_2017-10-18 (https://doi.org/10.15138/G3T055). The AmeriFlux Network data can be downloaded from http://ameriflux.lbl.gov/. The details of the sites used can be found in Table S1. Funding for AmeriFlux data resources was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. The meteorological data used are from the NOAA rawindsonde stations (https://ruc.noaa.gov/raobs/). Computing resources were provided by the NASA High-End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center. The WRF-Chem model output used for this study is available at datacommons.psu.edu (doi:10.26208/7a4p-q224).
Funding Information:
Primary funding for this research was provided by NASA's Earth Sciences Division as part of the Atmospheric Carbon and Transport (ACT)‐America Earth Venture Suborbital mission (grant NNX15AG76G to Penn State). We thank M. P. Butler at the Pennsylvania State University for generating the codes that incorporate the global modeled CO 2 mole fractions into the regional model with the conservation of mass (archived at https://github.com/psu‐inversion/WRF_boundary_coupling ), S. Basu at NOAA ESRL GMD, Boulder, Colorado, United States, for providing TM5 modeled CO 2 mole fractions, J. Berner at the National Center for Atmospheric Research for technical support to implement the stochastic kinetic energy backscatter scheme, and S. Biraud for providing the list of AmeriFlux DOIs. The 3‐hourly output from Multi‐scale Synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP; http://nacp.ornl.gov/MsTMIP.shtml ) can be found the Modeling and Synthesis Thematic Data Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL; http://nacp.ornl.gov ). CarbonTracker CT2016 results were provided by NOAA ESRL, Boulder, Colorado, United States, from the website at http://carbontracker.noaa.gov . A set of GEOS‐Chem simulated CO 2 mole fractions are provided by NASA Carbon Monitoring System ( https://carbon.nasa.gov/ ). The CO S1 datacommons.psu.edu 2 mole fraction data used in this work were prepared by the in situ tower and aircraft programs at National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Global Greenhouse Gas Reference Network. The data set was archived in obspack_co2_1_GLOBALVIEWplus_v3.1_2017‐10‐18 ( https://doi.org/10.15138/G3T055 ). The AmeriFlux Network data can be downloaded from http://ameriflux.lbl.gov/ . The details of the sites used can be found in Table . Funding for AmeriFlux data resources was provided by the U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Science. The meteorological data used are from the NOAA rawindsonde stations ( https://ruc.noaa.gov/raobs/ ). Computing resources were provided by the NASA High‐End Computing (HEC) Program through the NASA Advanced Supercomputing (NAS) Division at Ames Research Center. The WRF‐Chem model output used for this study is available at (doi:10.26208/7a4p‐q224).
Publisher Copyright:
©2019. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved.
PY - 2019/12/27
Y1 - 2019/12/27
N2 - Regional estimates of biogenic carbon fluxes over North America from both atmospheric inversions (“top-down” approach) and terrestrial biosphere models (“bottom-up”) remain highly uncertain. We merge these approaches with an ensemble-based, regional modeling system able to diagnose and quantify the causes of uncertainties in top-down atmospheric estimates of the terrestrial sink over North America. Our ensemble approach quantifies and partitions the uncertainty stemming from atmospheric transport, the biosphere, and large-scale CO2 boundary inflow (boundary conditions). We use meteorological data, CO2 fluxes, and CO2 mole fraction measurements to assure the reliability of the ensemble system. Our results show that all uncertainty components have clear seasonal variations. The biogenic flux component dominates modeled boundary layer CO2 uncertainty, ranging from 2.5 ppm in summer and winter to 1.5 ppm in fall and spring. Spatially, it remains highly uncertain in the U.S. Corn Belt regions. Transport uncertainty reaches a maximum of 2.5 ppm in the summer months and stays at 1.2 ppm for the rest of the year and is highly correlated with the biogenic CO2 fluxes. Boundary conditions play the smallest role in atmospheric boundary layer CO2 uncertainty with a magnitude smaller than 1 ppm. However, boundary conditions are the most important uncertainty component in column-averaged CO2 (XCO2). The spatiotemporal variations of the uncertainties in modeled XCO2 are similar to those in atmospheric boundary layer CO2.
AB - Regional estimates of biogenic carbon fluxes over North America from both atmospheric inversions (“top-down” approach) and terrestrial biosphere models (“bottom-up”) remain highly uncertain. We merge these approaches with an ensemble-based, regional modeling system able to diagnose and quantify the causes of uncertainties in top-down atmospheric estimates of the terrestrial sink over North America. Our ensemble approach quantifies and partitions the uncertainty stemming from atmospheric transport, the biosphere, and large-scale CO2 boundary inflow (boundary conditions). We use meteorological data, CO2 fluxes, and CO2 mole fraction measurements to assure the reliability of the ensemble system. Our results show that all uncertainty components have clear seasonal variations. The biogenic flux component dominates modeled boundary layer CO2 uncertainty, ranging from 2.5 ppm in summer and winter to 1.5 ppm in fall and spring. Spatially, it remains highly uncertain in the U.S. Corn Belt regions. Transport uncertainty reaches a maximum of 2.5 ppm in the summer months and stays at 1.2 ppm for the rest of the year and is highly correlated with the biogenic CO2 fluxes. Boundary conditions play the smallest role in atmospheric boundary layer CO2 uncertainty with a magnitude smaller than 1 ppm. However, boundary conditions are the most important uncertainty component in column-averaged CO2 (XCO2). The spatiotemporal variations of the uncertainties in modeled XCO2 are similar to those in atmospheric boundary layer CO2.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85077153496&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85077153496&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1029/2019JD031165
DO - 10.1029/2019JD031165
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85077153496
SN - 2169-897X
VL - 124
SP - 14325
EP - 14346
JO - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
JF - Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
IS - 24
ER -