Articles | Volume 13, issue 5
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2297-2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-2297-2020
Model evaluation paper
 | 
15 May 2020
Model evaluation paper |  | 15 May 2020

Representing model uncertainty for global atmospheric CO2 flux inversions using ECMWF-IFS-46R1

Joe R. McNorton, Nicolas Bousserez, Anna Agustí-Panareda, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Margarita Choulga, Andrew Dawson, Richard Engelen, Zak Kipling, and Simon Lang

Related authors

A global fuel characteristic model and dataset for wildfire prediction
Joe R. McNorton and Francesca Di Giuseppe
Biogeosciences, 21, 279–300, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-279-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-279-2024, 2024
Short summary
Technical note: The CAMS greenhouse gas reanalysis from 2003 to 2020
Anna Agustí-Panareda, Jérôme Barré, Sébastien Massart, Antje Inness, Ilse Aben, Melanie Ades, Bianca C. Baier, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Tobias Borsdorff, Nicolas Bousserez, Souhail Boussetta, Michael Buchwitz, Luca Cantarello, Cyril Crevoisier, Richard Engelen, Henk Eskes, Johannes Flemming, Sébastien Garrigues, Otto Hasekamp, Vincent Huijnen, Luke Jones, Zak Kipling, Bavo Langerock, Joe McNorton, Nicolas Meilhac, Stefan Noël, Mark Parrington, Vincent-Henri Peuch, Michel Ramonet, Miha Razinger, Maximilian Reuter, Roberto Ribas, Martin Suttie, Colm Sweeney, Jérôme Tarniewicz, and Lianghai Wu
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 23, 3829–3859, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-3829-2023, 2023
Short summary
The consolidated European synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom: 1990–2019
Ana Maria Roxana Petrescu, Chunjing Qiu, Matthew J. McGrath, Philippe Peylin, Glen P. Peters, Philippe Ciais, Rona L. Thompson, Aki Tsuruta, Dominik Brunner, Matthias Kuhnert, Bradley Matthews, Paul I. Palmer, Oksana Tarasova, Pierre Regnier, Ronny Lauerwald, David Bastviken, Lena Höglund-Isaksson, Wilfried Winiwarter, Giuseppe Etiope, Tuula Aalto, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Vladislav Bastrikov, Antoine Berchet, Patrick Brockmann, Giancarlo Ciotoli, Giulia Conchedda, Monica Crippa, Frank Dentener, Christine D. Groot Zwaaftink, Diego Guizzardi, Dirk Günther, Jean-Matthieu Haussaire, Sander Houweling, Greet Janssens-Maenhout, Massaer Kouyate, Adrian Leip, Antti Leppänen, Emanuele Lugato, Manon Maisonnier, Alistair J. Manning, Tiina Markkanen, Joe McNorton, Marilena Muntean, Gabriel D. Oreggioni, Prabir K. Patra, Lucia Perugini, Isabelle Pison, Maarit T. Raivonen, Marielle Saunois, Arjo J. Segers, Pete Smith, Efisio Solazzo, Hanqin Tian, Francesco N. Tubiello, Timo Vesala, Guido R. van der Werf, Chris Wilson, and Sönke Zaehle
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 1197–1268, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1197-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-1197-2023, 2023
Short summary
Evaluation of wetland CH4 in the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES) land surface model using satellite observations
Robert J. Parker, Chris Wilson, Edward Comyn-Platt, Garry Hayman, Toby R. Marthews, A. Anthony Bloom, Mark F. Lunt, Nicola Gedney, Simon J. Dadson, Joe McNorton, Neil Humpage, Hartmut Boesch, Martyn P. Chipperfield, Paul I. Palmer, and Dai Yamazaki
Biogeosciences, 19, 5779–5805, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5779-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-19-5779-2022, 2022
Short summary
Quantification of methane emissions from hotspots and during COVID-19 using a global atmospheric inversion
Joe McNorton, Nicolas Bousserez, Anna Agustí-Panareda, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Luca Cantarello, Richard Engelen, Vincent Huijnen, Antje Inness, Zak Kipling, Mark Parrington, and Roberto Ribas
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 22, 5961–5981, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5961-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-22-5961-2022, 2022
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Modelling wind farm effects in HARMONIE–AROME (cycle 43.2.2) – Part 1: Implementation and evaluation
Jana Fischereit, Henrik Vedel, Xiaoli Guo Larsén, Natalie E. Theeuwes, Gregor Giebel, and Eigil Kaas
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2855–2875, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2855-2024, 2024
Short summary
Analytical and adaptable initial conditions for dry and moist baroclinic waves in the global hydrostatic model OpenIFS (CY43R3)
Clément Bouvier, Daan van den Broek, Madeleine Ekblom, and Victoria A. Sinclair
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2961–2986, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2961-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2961-2024, 2024
Short summary
Challenges of constructing and selecting the “perfect” boundary conditions for the large-eddy simulation model PALM
Jelena Radović, Michal Belda, Jaroslav Resler, Kryštof Eben, Martin Bureš, Jan Geletič, Pavel Krč, Hynek Řezníček, and Vladimír Fuka
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2901–2927, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2901-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2901-2024, 2024
Short summary
A machine learning approach for evaluating Southern Ocean cloud radiative biases in a global atmosphere model
Sonya L. Fiddes, Marc D. Mallet, Alain Protat, Matthew T. Woodhouse, Simon P. Alexander, and Kalli Furtado
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2641–2662, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2641-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2641-2024, 2024
Short summary
Decision Support System version 1.0 (DSS v1.0) for air quality management in Delhi, India
Gaurav Govardhan, Sachin D. Ghude, Rajesh Kumar, Sumit Sharma, Preeti Gunwani, Chinmay Jena, Prafull Yadav, Shubhangi Ingle, Sreyashi Debnath, Pooja Pawar, Prodip Acharja, Rajmal Jat, Gayatry Kalita, Rupal Ambulkar, Santosh Kulkarni, Akshara Kaginalkar, Vijay K. Soni, Ravi S. Nanjundiah, and Madhavan Rajeevan
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2617–2640, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2617-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2617-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Agustí-Panareda, A., Massart, S., Chevallier, F., Balsamo, G., Boussetta, S., Dutra, E., and Beljaars, A.: A biogenic CO2 flux adjustment scheme for the mitigation of large-scale biases in global atmospheric CO2 analyses and forecasts, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 16, 10399–10418, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-16-10399-2016, 2016. 
Ahmadov, R., Gerbig, C., Kretschmer, R., Körner, S., Rödenbeck, C., Bousquet, P., and Ramonet, M.: Comparing high resolution WRF-VPRM simulations and two global CO2 transport models with coastal tower measurements of CO2, Biogeosciences, 6, 807–817, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-6-807-2009, 2009. 
Baker, D. F., Law, R. M., Gurney, K. R., Rayner, P., Peylin, P., Denning, A. S., Bousquet, P., Bruhwiler, L., Chen, Y. H., Ciais, P., and Fung, I. Y.: TransCom 3 inversion intercomparison: Impact of transport model errors on the interannual variability of regional CO2 fluxes, 1988–2003, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 20, GB1002, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002439, 2006. 
Download
Short summary
To infer carbon emissions from observations using atmospheric models, detailed knowledge of uncertainty is required. The uncertainties associated with models are often estimated because they are difficult to attribute. Here we use a state-of-the-art weather model to assess the impact of uncertainty in the wind fields on atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. These results can be used to help quantify the uncertainty in estimated carbon emissions from atmospheric observations.