Global carbon cycle observed from OCO-2 v9,v7 and in-situ data

Helene Peiro,  University of Oklahoma,  helene.peiro@ou.edu (Presenter)
Sean Crowell,  University of Oklahoma,  scrowell@ou.edu
Andrew Schuh,  Colorado State University,  aschuh@atmos.colostate.edu
David F Baker,  Colorado State University,  dfbaker66@gmail.com
Chris O'Dell,  Colorado State University,  odell@atmos.colostate.edu
Andrew R Jacobson,  Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES),  andy.jacobson@noaa.gov
Frederic Chevallier,  LSCE/IPSL,  frederic.chevallier@cea.fr
Junjie Liu,  JPL,  junjie.liu@jpl.nasa.gov
Annmarie Eldering,  Jet Propulsion Laboratory / Caltech,  annmarie.eldering@jpl.nasa.gov
David Crisp,  JPL/Caltech,  david.crisp@jpl.nasa.gov
Feng Deng,  University of Toronto,  brad.weir@nasa.gov
Brad Weir,  NASA GSFC GMAO / GESTAR USRA,  brad.weir@nasa.gov
Sourish Basu,  NASA GSFC GMAO / University of Maryland,  sourish@umd.edu
Matthew S. Johnson,  NASA Ames Research Center,  matthew.s.johnson@nasa.gov
Sajeev Philip,  Universities Space Research Associatio,  philip.sajeev@gmail.com
Ian Baker,  Colorado State University,  baker@atmos.colostate.edu

The model intercomparison project (MIP) provides a means of analysis of results from many different inversions using different chemistry transport models, prior emissions and optimization techniques. The objective of this project is to quantify the constraint of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) data as well as associated uncertainties. The initial MIP results using v7 OCO-2 retrievals and in situ data was only available for 2015-2016. The second round of the OCO-2 MIP using v9 OCO-2 XCO2 data has been released, spanning 2015-2018.
In this presentation, we will discuss the differences between the v7 and v9 flux constraints at global and regional scales, with a focus at the 2015-2016 El Nino period followed by the 2017-2018 period. The period following the El Nino years is a relative recovery period (or return to normal) for the tropics, though that the ensemble spread remains relatively large. These differences can partially be ascribed to transport differences among the models, as fluxes tend to group by transport model for some regions. In addition, results indicate differences between the net biogenic emissions of the two versions over some regions, particularly in the tropics.

Poster: Poster_Peiro_0_33_25.pdf 

Presentation Type: Poster

Session: 3.5c Flux estimates and atmospheric inversions from space-based GHG measurements

Session Date: Wednesday (6/16) 12:00 PM