1 Hit in 0.044 sec

Was Australia a sink or source of CO2 in 2015? Data assimilation using OCO-2 satellite measurements [post]

Yohanna Villalobos, Peter J. Rayner, Jeremy D. Silver, Steven Thomas, Vanessa Haverd, Jürgen Knauer, Zoë M. Loh, Nicholas M. Deutscher, David W. T. Griffith, David F. Pollard
2021 unpublished
Abstract. In this study, we present the assimilation of data from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) to estimate the Australian CO2 surface fluxes for the year 2015. We used a regional-scale atmospheric transport-dispersion model and a four-dimensional variational assimilation scheme. Our results suggest that Australia was a carbon sink of −0.3 ± 0.09 PgC y−1 compared to the prior estimate 0.09 ± 0.17 PgC y−1 (excluding fossil fuel emissions). Most of the uptake occurred over northern
more » ... ed over northern savannas, the Mediterranean ecotype in southern Australia and the sparsely vegetated ecotype in central Australia. Our results suggest that the majority of the carbon uptake over Mediterranean was associated with positive EVI anomalies (relative to 2000–2014). However, the stronger posterior carbon uptake estimated over savanna and sparsely vegetated ecosystem was due primarily to underestimation of the gross primary productivity by the land surface model (CABLE-BIOS3 model). To evaluate the accuracy of our posterior flux estimates, we compare our posterior CO2 concentration simulations against the column- averaged carbon retrievals from the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) and ground-based in-situ monitoring sites located around our Australia domain. In general, the performance of our posterior concentration compared well with TCCON observations, except when TCCON concentrations were dominated by ocean fluxes which were tightly constrained to their prior values. Comparisons with in-situ measurements also show encouraging results though with similar difficulties for coastal stations. For stations located far from the coast, the comparison with in situ data was more variable, suggesting difficulties to match the column-integrated and surface data by the inversion, most likely linked to model vertical transport.
doi:10.5194/acp-2021-16 fatcat:rrqzgfr6qbgprdhngj3xrqxsyi