Andrew Schuh 1, Stephen M. Ogle 1, Marek Uliasz 1, Dan Cooley 1, Tristram West 2, Ken Davis 3,...
-
date post
19-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
0
Transcript of Andrew Schuh 1, Stephen M. Ogle 1, Marek Uliasz 1, Dan Cooley 1, Tristram West 2, Ken Davis 3,...
Andrew Schuh1, Stephen M. Ogle1, Marek Uliasz1, Dan Cooley1, Tristram West2, Ken Davis3, Thomas Lauvaux3, Liza Diaz3, Scott Richardson3, Natasha Miles3, F. Jay Breidt1, Arlyn Andrews4, Gabrielle
Petron4, Linda Heath5, Debbie Huntzinger6, Kevin Gurney7, Erandi Lokupitiya1, Kathy Corbin8, and
Scott Denning1
Estimating Terrestrial Carbon Fluxes from Atmospheric CO2 in the
Mid-Continent (MCI) Region
1. Colorado State University, 2. The Pennsylvania State University, 3. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 4. NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, 5. U.S. Forest Service, 6. University of Michigan, 7. Purdue University, 8. CSIRO, Australia
We gratefully acknowledge funding support from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Earth Sciences Division, to Colorado State University (agreement #NNX08AK08G).
2
Basic Atmospheric CO2
Inversion Components
GPP
ER
Lagrangian Particle Dispersion Model(LPDM) with Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS)
Calibrated CO2 concentrations Observations from Flux Towers
SiB3 model of biosphere fluxes
Fossil Fuel Emissions
Boundary Conditions
WLEF Tower (Park Falls WI, USA)
3
“Observed” at 2PM on 7/7/2004: 368 ppm
“Calculated” for 2PM on 7/7/2004: 370 ppm - 3 ppm + 1 ppm - 2 ppm = 366 ppm
WLEF Tower
-2 ppm
1 ppm-3 ppm370 ppm
Transport Model: Conceptualizing
Carbon drawdown in upwind areas must be too strong since the observed CO2 at the tower is higher than what we predict
Final: 366 ppm
*Big Picture*
4 MgC
-4 MgC
1.5 MgC
2007 CarbonTracker Annual NEE Estimate 2007 SiB-CROP a priori NEE Estimate
Carbon Sink: 318 TgC NEE, MCI (2007) Carbon SINK: 81 TgC NEE, MCI (2007)
2007 Inventory Annual NEE Estimate
Carbon SINK: 130 TgC NEE, MCI (2007)
• Are the inventory data and the inversion data reconcilable?• Are the means relatively close?• Does the inventory mean sit within the confidence bounds of the inversion results?• What are the sensitivities of the inversion to difficult to quantify uncertainties, e.g. variations in transport and inversion setup.
2 MgC
-2 MgC
Group Work
Colorado State University
Have RAMS transport at 40 km for N. America for 2007. have LPDM footprints for 19 towers (including Ring 2). Performing and investigating inversion results at continental scale and comparing to PSU fine scale results.
University of Michigan
Waiting on influence functions for geostatistical inversion and working in conjunction with NOAA in the generation of wind fields and stilt footprints.
NOAA Working w/ UM and AER, WRF output is done for 2004-2008 (variety of resolutions) and initial STILT footprints are available for a few months. Using these initial footprints for investigation of CT residuals in Ring 2 area. Generated GlobalView Zonal boundary conditions to supplement CarbonTracker.
Penn State University
Have WRF meteorology for 4/2007 – 12/2007 (?) and have generated footprints (LPDM) and run inversion for summer of 2007, testing sensitivity over various components such as prior flux estimate.
“Everything but the kitchen sink”1. LEF (WI)2. Argyle (ME)3. BAO (CO)4. WKT (TX)5. West Branch (IA)6. Martha’s Vineyard (MA)7. Centerville (IA)8. Kewanee (IL)9. Round Lake (MN)10.Mean (NE)11.Galesville (WI)12.Rosemount (MN)13.Canaan Valley (WV)14.Ozarks (MO)15.Metolius (OR)16.Fraserdale17.Candle Lake18.Sable Island19.LacLabiche
Ratio of annual posterior respiration to annual a priori respiration, i.e. 0.4 means that “optimized” flux is 40% of original
“Optimized” annual respiration fluxes
Reduction in Re
Posterior Re (g/m2/yr)
Results from “everything but the kitchen sink run”
Ratio of annual posterior respiration to annual a priori respiration, i.e. 0.4 means that “optimized” flux is 40% of original
“Optimized” annual GPP fluxes
Reduction in GPP
Posterior GPP (g/m2/yr)
North American Inversion Results: GPP
“A priori” assumed annual NEE based upon SiB-CROP.
“Optimized” annual NEE fluxes
Annual NEE (g/m2/yr)
Posterior NEE (g/m2/yr)
North American Inversion Results: NEE
North American Inversion Results: NEE (g/m2/yr)
NEE estimate over Oregon (constained by Metolius site, Goeckede, Law, et al) seems in line with their regional estimate.
North American Inversion Results: NEE (g/m2/yr)
This area is likely source? (drought of 2007 in S.E.) Pretty unconstrained, only last few months of year for Canaan Valley and both Canaan Valley and Martha’s Vineyard are very close to fossil sources (a priori CO2 pretty high at Canaan).
North side of ring2: Just poor conditions?(…and other wildly unjustified hypotheses!)
-60
-20Rosemount 2007 NEE (umol m^-2 sec^-1)
Corn 2 weeks early?
Dry and hot?
Assumptions to tweak• LARGE 200 km infl footprints now. Drop to 100/200 km over
N.A. and 40 km over MCI and/or some combination of splitting veg types
• Diag(6.5ppm) obs error covariance matrix– try tower specific “average” errors– estimate correlations in obs errors
• Test boundary conditions (Globalview zonal averages)• Kalman Filter setup
– reset of variance every step (like CT)– currently using full propagate of mean (t=i-1), (unlike CT
which uses 3 part smoother, ave(t=0,t=i-2, t=i-1) in estimating time
KewanneeGalesville
Mead Round Lake
Difference in passive tracer contribution to towers (WRF-STILT, RAMS-LPDM) Afternoon
Summary• Test inversion assumptions, obs err
correlations, decorrelation length scale, etc.• Investigate specific residuals and footprints,
i.e. how much are north ring2 residuals a function of local fluxes?
• Investigate the Lagrangian model differences and/or use both as transport and incorporate into inversion uncertainty. Spot check WRF/RAMS simulation as well.