State of the science in reconciling top‐down and bottom‐up approaches for terrestrial CO 2 budget
[1];
[2];
[3];
[4];
[5];
[6];
[6];
[7];
[8];
[9];
[10];
[11];
[13];
[14];
[15];
[16];
[17];
[18]
more »
- Center for Environmental Remote Sensing Chiba University Chiba Japan
- Center for Environmental Remote Sensing Chiba University Chiba Japan, Department of Environmental Geochemical Cycle Research Japan Agency for Marine–Earth Science and Technology Yokohama Japan
- College of Life and Environmental Sciences University of Exeter Exeter UK
- College of Engineering, Mathematics, and Physical Sciences University of Exeter Exeter UK
- Biospheric Science Laboratory National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt MD USA
- Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement Institut Pierre Simon Laplace Gif‐sur‐Yvette France
- Global Carbon Project Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation–Oceans and Atmosphere Canberra ACT Australia
- Department of Geography Ludwig–Maximilian University of Munich Munich Germany
- Université Libre de Bruxelles Bruxelles Belgium
- W.A. Franke College of Forestry &, Conservation University of Montana Missoula MT USA
- Center for Environmental Remote Sensing Chiba University Chiba Japan, Center for Global Environmental Research National Institute for Environmental Studies Tsukuba Japan
- Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research/Atmospheric Environmental Research Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Garmisch‐Partenkirchen Germany
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation–Oceans and Atmosphere Canberra ACT Australia
- Department of Atmospheric Sciences University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign Urbana IL USA
- Institute of Applied Energy Tokyo Japan
- Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research/Atmospheric Environmental Research Karlsruhe Institute of Technology Garmisch‐Partenkirchen Germany, Department of Forest Health Forest Research Institute Baden‐Württemberg Freiburg Germany
- Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation–Oceans and Atmosphere Aspendale Vic. Australia
- Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research University of Bern Bern Switzerland
- Climate and Global Dynamics National Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder CO USA
- Meteorological Research Institute Tsukuba Japan
- Japan Meteorological Agency Tokyo Japan
- Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry Jena Germany
- Central Aerological Observatory of Russian Hydromet Service Moscow Russia
- Center for Global Environmental Research National Institute for Environmental Studies Tsukuba Japan
- International Center for Climate and Global Change Research School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences Auburn University Auburn AL USA
Abstract Robust estimates of CO 2 budget, CO 2 exchanged between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere, are necessary to better understand the role of the terrestrial biosphere in mitigating anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. Over the past decade, this field of research has advanced through understanding of the differences and similarities of two fundamentally different approaches: “top‐down” atmospheric inversions and “bottom‐up” biosphere models. Since the first studies were undertaken, these approaches have shown an increasing level of agreement, but disagreements in some regions still persist, in part because they do not estimate the same quantity of atmosphere–biosphere CO 2 exchange. Here, we conducted a thorough comparison of CO 2 budgets at multiple scales and from multiple methods to assess the current state of the science in estimating CO 2 budgets. Our set of atmospheric inversions and biosphere models, which were adjusted for a consistent flux definition, showed a high level of agreement for global and hemispheric CO 2 budgets in the 2000s. Regionally, improved agreement in CO 2 budgets was notable for North America and Southeast Asia. However, large gaps between the two methods remained in East Asia and South America. In other regions, Europe, boreal Asia, Africa, South Asia, and Oceania, it was difficult to determine whether those regions act as a net sink or source because of the large spread in estimates from atmospheric inversions. These results highlight two research directions to improve the robustness of CO 2 budgets: (a) to increase representation of processes in biosphere models that could contribute to fill the budget gaps, such as forest regrowth and forest degradation; and (b) to reduce sink–source compensation between regions (dipoles) in atmospheric inversion so that their estimates become more comparable. Advancements on both research areas will increase the level of agreement between the top‐down and bottom‐up approaches and yield more robust knowledge of regional CO 2 budgets.
- Sponsoring Organization:
- USDOE
- Grant/Contract Number:
- DE‐SC0016323
- OSTI ID:
- 1579395
- Journal Information:
- Global Change Biology, Journal Name: Global Change Biology Vol. 26 Journal Issue: 3; ISSN 1354-1013
- Publisher:
- Wiley-BlackwellCopyright Statement
- Country of Publication:
- United Kingdom
- Language:
- English
Web of Science
Similar Records
Reconciling estimates of the contemporary North American carbon balance among terrestrial biosphere models, atmospheric inversions and a new approach for estimating net ecosystem exchange from inventory-based data
The terrestrial carbon budget of South and Southeast Asia