Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorPeylin, P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMaksyutov, S.en_US
dc.contributor.authorMarshall, J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRödenbeck, C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLangenfelds, R.L.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSteele, L.P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorFrancey, R.J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorTans P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorSweeney C.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPickett-Heaps, C. A.en_US
dc.contributor.authorRayner, P. J.en_US
dc.contributor.authorLaw, R. M.en_US
dc.contributor.authorCiais, P.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPatra, P. K.en_US
dc.contributor.authorBousquet, P.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2014-05-22T07:00:23Z
dc.date.available2014-05-22T07:00:23Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.identifier.citationPickett-Heaps, C. A., Rayner, P. J., Law, R. M., Ciais, P., Patra, P. K., Bousquet, P. et al. (2011). Atmospheric CO2 inversion validation using vertical profile measurements: analysis of four independent inversion models. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 116, doi:10.1029/2010JD014887.en_US
dc.identifier.issn2156–2202en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11343/32766
dc.description© 2011 American Geophysical Unionen_US
dc.description.abstractWe present the results of a validation of atmospheric inversions of CO2 fluxes using four transport models. Each inversion uses data primarily from surface stations, combined with an atmospheric transport model, to estimate surface fluxes. The validation (or model evaluation) consists of running these optimized fluxes through the forward model and comparing the simulated concentrations with airborne concentration measurements. We focus on profiles from Cape Grim, Tasmania, and Carr, Colorado, while using other profile sites to test the generality of the comparison. Fits to the profiles are generally worse than to the surface data from the inversions and worse than the expected model-data mismatch. Thus inversion estimates are generally not consistent with the profile measurements. The TM3 model does better by some measures than the other three models. Models perform better over Tasmania than Colorado, and other profile sites bear out a general improvement from north to south and from continental to marine locations. There are also errors in the interannual variability of the fit, consistent in time and common across models. This suggests real variations in sources visible to the profile but not the surface measurements.en_US
dc.languageengen_US
dc.publisherAmerican Geophysical Unionen_US
dc.subjectatmospheric CO2 inversionen_US
dc.subjectmultimodel comparisonen_US
dc.subjectinversion validationen_US
dc.subjectaircraft dataen_US
dc.titleAtmospheric CO2 inversion validation using vertical profile measurements: analysis of four independent inversion modelsen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
melbourne.peerreviewPeer Revieweden_US
melbourne.affiliationThe University of Melbourneen_US
melbourne.affiliation.departmentScience - Earth Sciencesen_US
melbourne.publication.statusPublisheden_US
melbourne.source.titleJournal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheresen_US
melbourne.source.volume116en_US
melbourne.elementsidNA
melbourne.contributor.authorRayner, Peter
melbourne.accessrightsOpen Access


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record