Investigating the differences in calculating global mean surface CO2 abundance : the impact of analysis methodologies and site selection

The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) coordinates high-quality atmospheric greenhouse gas observations globally and provides these observations through the WMO World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) supported by Japan Meteorological Agency. The WDCGG and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) analyse these measurements using different methodologies and site selection to calculate global annual mean surface CO2 and its growth rate as a headline climate indicator. This study introduces a third hybrid method named GFIT, which serves as an independent validation and open-source alternative to the methods described by NOAA and WDCGG. We apply GFIT to incorporate observations from most WMO GAW stations and 3D modelled CO2 fields from CarbonTracker Europe (CTE). We find that different observational networks (i.e. NOAA, GAW, and CTE networks) and analysis methods result in differences in the calculated global surface CO2 mole fractions equivalent to the current atmospheric growth rate over a 3-month period. However, the CO2 growth rate derived from these networks and the CTE model output shows good agreement. Over the long-term period (40 years), both networks with and without continental sites exhibit the same trend in the growth rate (0.030±0.002ppmyr-1 each year). However, a clear difference emerges in the short-term (1-month) change in the growth rate. The network that includes continental sites improves the early detection of changes in biogenic emissions.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Wu, Zhendong, Vermeulen, Alex, Sawa, Yousuke, Karstens, Ute, Peters, Wouter, de Kok, Remco, Lan, Xin, Nagai, Yasuyuki, Ogi, Akinori, Tarasova, Oksana
Format: Article/Letter to editor biblioteca
Language:English
Subjects:Life Science,
Online Access:https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/investigating-the-differences-in-calculating-global-mean-surface-
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id dig-wur-nl-wurpubs-626843
record_format koha
spelling dig-wur-nl-wurpubs-6268432024-12-04 Wu, Zhendong Vermeulen, Alex Sawa, Yousuke Karstens, Ute Peters, Wouter de Kok, Remco Lan, Xin Nagai, Yasuyuki Ogi, Akinori Tarasova, Oksana Article/Letter to editor Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics 24 (2024) 2 ISSN: 1680-7316 Investigating the differences in calculating global mean surface CO2 abundance : the impact of analysis methodologies and site selection 2024 The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) coordinates high-quality atmospheric greenhouse gas observations globally and provides these observations through the WMO World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) supported by Japan Meteorological Agency. The WDCGG and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) analyse these measurements using different methodologies and site selection to calculate global annual mean surface CO2 and its growth rate as a headline climate indicator. This study introduces a third hybrid method named GFIT, which serves as an independent validation and open-source alternative to the methods described by NOAA and WDCGG. We apply GFIT to incorporate observations from most WMO GAW stations and 3D modelled CO2 fields from CarbonTracker Europe (CTE). We find that different observational networks (i.e. NOAA, GAW, and CTE networks) and analysis methods result in differences in the calculated global surface CO2 mole fractions equivalent to the current atmospheric growth rate over a 3-month period. However, the CO2 growth rate derived from these networks and the CTE model output shows good agreement. Over the long-term period (40 years), both networks with and without continental sites exhibit the same trend in the growth rate (0.030±0.002ppmyr-1 each year). However, a clear difference emerges in the short-term (1-month) change in the growth rate. The network that includes continental sites improves the early detection of changes in biogenic emissions. en application/pdf https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/investigating-the-differences-in-calculating-global-mean-surface- 10.5194/acp-24-1249-2024 https://edepot.wur.nl/649575 Life Science https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/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 Life Science
Life Science
spellingShingle Life Science
Life Science
Wu, Zhendong
Vermeulen, Alex
Sawa, Yousuke
Karstens, Ute
Peters, Wouter
de Kok, Remco
Lan, Xin
Nagai, Yasuyuki
Ogi, Akinori
Tarasova, Oksana
Investigating the differences in calculating global mean surface CO2 abundance : the impact of analysis methodologies and site selection
description The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Global Atmosphere Watch (GAW) coordinates high-quality atmospheric greenhouse gas observations globally and provides these observations through the WMO World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases (WDCGG) supported by Japan Meteorological Agency. The WDCGG and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) analyse these measurements using different methodologies and site selection to calculate global annual mean surface CO2 and its growth rate as a headline climate indicator. This study introduces a third hybrid method named GFIT, which serves as an independent validation and open-source alternative to the methods described by NOAA and WDCGG. We apply GFIT to incorporate observations from most WMO GAW stations and 3D modelled CO2 fields from CarbonTracker Europe (CTE). We find that different observational networks (i.e. NOAA, GAW, and CTE networks) and analysis methods result in differences in the calculated global surface CO2 mole fractions equivalent to the current atmospheric growth rate over a 3-month period. However, the CO2 growth rate derived from these networks and the CTE model output shows good agreement. Over the long-term period (40 years), both networks with and without continental sites exhibit the same trend in the growth rate (0.030±0.002ppmyr-1 each year). However, a clear difference emerges in the short-term (1-month) change in the growth rate. The network that includes continental sites improves the early detection of changes in biogenic emissions.
format Article/Letter to editor
topic_facet Life Science
author Wu, Zhendong
Vermeulen, Alex
Sawa, Yousuke
Karstens, Ute
Peters, Wouter
de Kok, Remco
Lan, Xin
Nagai, Yasuyuki
Ogi, Akinori
Tarasova, Oksana
author_facet Wu, Zhendong
Vermeulen, Alex
Sawa, Yousuke
Karstens, Ute
Peters, Wouter
de Kok, Remco
Lan, Xin
Nagai, Yasuyuki
Ogi, Akinori
Tarasova, Oksana
author_sort Wu, Zhendong
title Investigating the differences in calculating global mean surface CO2 abundance : the impact of analysis methodologies and site selection
title_short Investigating the differences in calculating global mean surface CO2 abundance : the impact of analysis methodologies and site selection
title_full Investigating the differences in calculating global mean surface CO2 abundance : the impact of analysis methodologies and site selection
title_fullStr Investigating the differences in calculating global mean surface CO2 abundance : the impact of analysis methodologies and site selection
title_full_unstemmed Investigating the differences in calculating global mean surface CO2 abundance : the impact of analysis methodologies and site selection
title_sort investigating the differences in calculating global mean surface co2 abundance : the impact of analysis methodologies and site selection
url https://research.wur.nl/en/publications/investigating-the-differences-in-calculating-global-mean-surface-
work_keys_str_mv AT wuzhendong investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
AT vermeulenalex investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
AT sawayousuke investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
AT karstensute investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
AT peterswouter investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
AT dekokremco investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
AT lanxin investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
AT nagaiyasuyuki investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
AT ogiakinori investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
AT tarasovaoksana investigatingthedifferencesincalculatingglobalmeansurfaceco2abundancetheimpactofanalysismethodologiesandsiteselection
_version_ 1819140847964258304