Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates

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.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: 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.
Format: Article/Letter to editor biblioteca
Language:English
Subjects:atmospheric inversions, carbon cycle, dynamic global vegetation models, global carbon budget,
Online Access:https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/sources-of-uncertainty-in-regional-and-global-terrestrial-cosub2s
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id dig-wur-nl-wurpubs-562981
record_format koha
spelling dig-wur-nl-wurpubs-5629812024-10-30 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. Article/Letter to editor Global Biogeochemical Cycles 34 (2020) 2 ISSN: 0886-6236 Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates 2020 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. en application/pdf https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/sources-of-uncertainty-in-regional-and-global-terrestrial-cosub2s 10.1029/2019GB006393 https://edepot.wur.nl/518899 atmospheric inversions carbon cycle dynamic global vegetation models global carbon budget https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Wageningen University & Research
institution WUR NL
collection DSpace
country Países bajos
countrycode NL
component Bibliográfico
access En linea
databasecode dig-wur-nl
tag biblioteca
region Europa del Oeste
libraryname WUR Library Netherlands
language English
topic atmospheric inversions
carbon cycle
dynamic global vegetation models
global carbon budget
atmospheric inversions
carbon cycle
dynamic global vegetation models
global carbon budget
spellingShingle atmospheric inversions
carbon cycle
dynamic global vegetation models
global carbon budget
atmospheric inversions
carbon cycle
dynamic global vegetation models
global carbon budget
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.
Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates
description 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.
format Article/Letter to editor
topic_facet atmospheric inversions
carbon cycle
dynamic global vegetation models
global carbon budget
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.
author_facet 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.
author_sort Bastos, A.
title Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates
title_short Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates
title_full Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates
title_fullStr Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates
title_full_unstemmed Sources of Uncertainty in Regional and Global Terrestrial CO2 Exchange Estimates
title_sort sources of uncertainty in regional and global terrestrial co2 exchange estimates
url https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/sources-of-uncertainty-in-regional-and-global-terrestrial-cosub2s
work_keys_str_mv AT bastosa sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT osullivanm sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT ciaisp sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT makowskid sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT sitchs sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT friedlingsteinp sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT chevallierf sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT rodenbeckc sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT pongratzj sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT luijkxit sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT patrapk sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT peylinp sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT canadelljg sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT lauerwaldr sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT liw sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT smithne sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT petersw sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT gollds sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT jainak sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT katoe sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT lienerts sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT lombardozzidl sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT haverdv sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT nabeljems sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT poulterb sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT tianh sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT walkerap sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
AT zaehles sourcesofuncertaintyinregionalandglobalterrestrialco2exchangeestimates
_version_ 1816155663190982656