Abstract
Comparisons of carbon uptake estimates from bottom-up terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs) to top-down atmospheric inversions help assess how well we understand carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere. Previous comparisons have shown varying levels of agreement between bottom-up and top-down approaches, but they have almost exclusively focused on large, aggregated scales (e.g., global or continental), providing limited insights into reasons for the mismatches. Here we explore how consistency, defined as the spread in net ecosystem exchange (NEE) estimates within an ensemble of TBMs or inversions, varies with at finer spatial scales ranging from 1 ×1 to the continent of North America. We also evaluate how well consistency informs accuracy in overall NEE estimates by filtering models based on their agreement with the variability, magnitude, and seasonality in observed atmospheric CO2 drawdowns or enhancements. We find that TBMs produce more consistent estimates of NEE for most regions and at most scales relative to inversions. Filtering models using atmospheric CO2 metrics causes ensemble spread to decrease substantially for TBMs, but not for inversions. This suggests that ensemble spread is likely not a reliable measure of the uncertainty associated with the North American carbon balance at any spatial scale. Promisingly, applying atmospheric CO2 metrics leads to a set of models with converging flux estimates across TBMs and inversions. Overall, we show that multiscale assessment of the agreement between bottom-up and top-down NEE estimates, aided by regional-scale observational constraints is a promising path towards identifying fine-scale sources of uncertainty and improving both ensemble consistency and accuracy. These findings help refine our understanding of biospheric carbon balance, particularly at scales relevant for informing regional carbon-climate feedbacks.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 869-891 |
Number of pages | 23 |
Journal | Biogeosciences |
Volume | 21 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Feb 16 2024 |
Funding
The authors thank Trevor Keenan and Xiangzhong Luo for processing and providing the MODIS FPAR data. We acknowledge the NCEP North American Regional Reanalysis data provided by the NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, USA (obtained from https://psl.noaa.gov/ , last access: 12 July 2023). We thank all modelers and investigators who contributed to the Multi-scale synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project (MsTMIP; http://nacp.ornl.gov/MsTMIP. shtml , last access: 12 July 2023). Funding for the Multi-scale synthesis and Terrestrial Model Intercomparison Project activity was provided through NASA ROSES grant no. NNX10AG01A. Data management support for preparing, documenting, and distributing model driver and output data was performed by the Modeling and Synthesis Thematic Data Center at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL; https://nacp.ornl.gov , last access: 12 July 2023), with funding through NASA ROSES grant no. NNH10AN681. Finalized MsTMIP data products are archived at the ORNL DAAC ( https://daac.ornl.gov , last access: 12 July 2023). The authors thank Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, and all modelers of the Trends in Net Land-Atmosphere Exchange project (TRENDY; https://blogs.exeter.ac.uk/trendy/ , last access: 12 July 2023). We thank the following individuals for collecting and providing the atmospheric CO data from the following sites: Arlyn Andrews for AMT, BAO, LEF, WBI, and WKT; Arlyn Andrews and Marc L. Fischer for WGC; Arlyn Andrews and Matt J. Parker for SCT; Arlyn Andrews and Stephan De Wekker for SNP; Sebastien Biraud and Margaret Torn for SGP; Tim Griffis for KCMP; Beverly Law, Andres Schmidt, and the TERRA-PNW group for data from the five Oregon sites OFR, OMP, OMT, ONG, and OYQ; Natasha Miles, Scott Richardson, and Ken Davis for AAC, ACR, ACV, AME, AOZ, FPK, RCE, RGV, RKW, RMM, and RRL; Britton Stephens and the Regional Atmospheric Continuous CO Network in the Rocky Mountains (RACCOON) for HDP, NWR, RBA, and SPL; Colm Sweeney for MVY; Kirk Thoning and Pieter Tans for BRW; Steven Wofsy and William Munger for HFM; Doug Worthy for BCK, BRA, CDL, CHM, EGB, ESP, EST, ETL, FSD, LLB, and WSA. Measurements at WGC were partially supported by grants from the California Energy Commission (CEC) Public Interest Environmental Research Program to the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which operates under US Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231. The authors thank the Atmospheric and Environmental Research, Inc. (AER) – particularly, Thomas Nehrkorn, John Henderson, and Janusz Eluszkiewicz – for conducting WRF-STILT simulations and providing transport footprints. We thank the CarbonTracker-Lagrange project team for proving the WRF-STILT transport footprints. The authors thank Kevin Gurney for FFDAS v2 data. We thank the CarbonTracker team for the CarbonTracker CT2019B results provided by the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, USA ( http://carbontracker.noaa.gov , last access: 12 July 2023). We thank the CarbonTracker-Lagrange team for terrestrial CO fluxes data. We thank the CarbonTracker Europe team for the CarbonTracker Europe results provided by Wageningen University in collaboration with the ObsPack partners ( http://www.carbontracker.eu , last access: 12 July 2023). We thank the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS) team for the CAMS inversion results generated using Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service Information (2020). Neither the European Commission nor ECMWF is responsible for any use that may be made of the information it contains. We thank Christian Rödenbeck for CarboScope-sEXTocNEET data (retrieved from http://www.bgc-jena.mpg.de/CarboScope/?ID=sEXTocNEET_v4.3 , last access: 12 July 2023). We thank the MIROC-ACTM team for the MIROC-ACTM inversions results that are provided by JAMSTEC (ArCS-II grant no. JPMXD1420318865, and ERTDF SII-8 grant no. JPMEERF21S20800). Wu Sun and Kelsey T. Foster receive funding support by NASA through the Carbon Monitoring System (grant no. 80NSSC18K0165) and the Terrestrial Ecology programs (grant no. 80NSSC22K1253), with additional support from the Carnegie Institution for Science’s endowment fund. Jiafu Mao was supported by the Terrestrial Ecosystem Science Scientific Focus Area (TES SFA) project funded by the US Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is supported by the Office of Science of the US Department of Energy under contract no. DEAC05-00OR22725.
Funders | Funder number |
---|---|
U.S. Department of Energy | DE-AC02-05CH11231 |
National Aeronautics and Space Administration | NNX10AG01A, 80NSSC18K0165, 80NSSC22K1253 |
California Energy Commission | |
Carnegie Institution of Washington | |
Office of Science | |
Biological and Environmental Research | DEAC05-00OR22725 |
Oak Ridge National Laboratory | NNH10AN681 |