globalchange  > 气候变化与战略
DOI: 10.1029/2019GB006393
Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates
Author: Bastos A.; O'Sullivan M.; Ciais P.; Makowski D.; Sitch S.; Friedlingstein P.; Chevallier F.; Rödenbeck C.; Pongratz J.; Luijkx I.T.; Patra P.K.; Peylin P.; Canadell J.G.; Lauerwald R.; Li W.; Smith N.E.; Peters W.; Goll D.S.; Jain A.K.; Kato E.; Lienert S.; Lombardozzi D.L.; Haverd V.; Nabel J.E.M.S.; Poulter B.; Tian H.; Walker A.P.; Zaehle S.
Source Publication: Global Biogeochemical Cycles
ISSN: 0886-6236
EISSN: 1944-9224
Publishing Year: 2020
Volume: 34, Issue:2
Language: 英语
Keyword: carbon budget ; carbon cycle ; carbon dioxide ; ecological modeling ; El Nino-Southern Oscillation ; fossil fuel ; land use change ; net ecosystem production ; Brazil ; South America ; Southeast Asia
Subject Area: atmospheric inversions ; carbon cycle ; dynamic global vegetation models ; global carbon budget
Abstract: The Global Carbon Budget 2018 (GCB2018) estimated by the atmospheric CO2 growth rate, fossil fuel emissions, and modeled (bottom-up) land and ocean fluxes cannot be fully closed, leading to a “budget imbalance,” highlighting uncertainties in GCB components. However, no systematic analysis has been performed on which regions or processes contribute to this term. To obtain deeper insight on the sources of uncertainty in global and regional carbon budgets, we analyzed differences in Net Biome Productivity (NBP) for all possible combinations of bottom-up and top-down data sets in GCB2018: (i) 16 dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), and (ii) 5 atmospheric inversions that match the atmospheric CO2 growth rate. We find that the global mismatch between the two ensembles matches well the GCB2018 budget imbalance, with Brazil, Southeast Asia, and Oceania as the largest contributors. Differences between DGVMs dominate global mismatches, while at regional scale differences between inversions contribute the most to uncertainty. At both global and regional scales, disagreement on NBP interannual variability between the two approaches explains a large fraction of differences. We attribute this mismatch to distinct responses to El Niño–Southern Oscillation variability between DGVMs and inversions and to uncertainties in land use change emissions, especially in South America and Southeast Asia. We identify key needs to reduce uncertainty in carbon budgets: reducing uncertainty in atmospheric inversions (e.g., through more observations in the tropics) and in land use change fluxes, including more land use processes and evaluating land use transitions (e.g., using high-resolution remote-sensing), and, finally, improving tropical hydroecological processes and fire representation within DGVMs. ©2020. The Authors.
Citation statistics:
Document Type: 期刊论文
Appears in Collections:气候变化与战略

Files in This Item:

There are no files associated with this item.

Affiliation: Department of Geography, Ludwig-Maximilians Universität, München, Germany; College of Engineering, Mathematics and Physical Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom; Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l'Environnement, CEA-CNRS-UVSQ, UMR8212, Gif-sur-Yvette, France; University Paris-Saclay, AgroParisTech, INRAE, UMR 211, Thiverval-Grignon, France; CIRED, Nogent-sur-Marne, France; College of Life and Environmental Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom; Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, Jena, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Hamburg, Germany; Department of Meteorology and Air Quality, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands; Research Institute for Global Change, Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan; CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere, Canberra, ACT, Australia; Department of Geoscience, Environment and Society, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles, Belgium; Ministry of Education Key Laboratory for Earth System Modeling, Department of Earth System Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China; Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands; Department of Geography, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany; Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, United States; Institute of Applied Energy, Minato, Japan; Climate and Environmental Physics, Physics Institute and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland; Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, United States; CNRM, Université de Toulouse, Mto-France, CNRS, Toulouse, France; Biospheric Sciences Lab, NASA, Greenbelt, MD, United States; International Center for Climate and Global Change Research, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences, Auburn University, Auburn, AL, United States; Environmental Sciences Division and Climate Change Science Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, United States

Recommended Citation:
Bastos A.,O'Sullivan M.,Ciais P.,et al. Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates[J]. Global Biogeochemical Cycles,2020-01-01,34(2)
Recommend this item
Sava as my favorate item
Show this item's statistics
Export Endnote File
Google Scholar
Similar articles in Google Scholar
[Bastos A.]'s Articles
[O'Sullivan M.]'s Articles
[Ciais P.]'s Articles
Similar articles in Baidu Scholar
[Bastos A.]'s Articles
[O'Sullivan M.]'s Articles
[Ciais P.]'s Articles
CSDL cross search
Similar articles in CSDL Cross Search
[Bastos A.]‘s Articles
[O'Sullivan M.]‘s Articles
[Ciais P.]‘s Articles
Related Copyright Policies
所有评论 (0)

Items in IR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.