Search

Atmospheric inversion estimates of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2 are increasingly relevant to climate policy. We evaluated sub‐continental, seasonal estimates of CO2 NEE from nine global inversion systems that participated in the Orbiting Carbon Observatory‐2 model intercomparison project (OCO‐2 v9 MIP), using 98 research flights conducted over the central and eastern United States from 2016 to 2018 as part of the Atmospheric Carbon and Transport ‐ America mission. We found that the seasonal amplitude of NEE in the central and eastern United States is underestimated in these models and model‐data biases are largest for those inversions with the smallest seasonal flux amplitudes. These results were independent of whether the inversions used satellite or in situ data. The largest NEE biases were observed in the Midwest croplands and eastern forests. Future experiments are needed to determine the causes of the persistent biases and if they are associated with biases in annual flux estimates. Plain Language Summary: The exchange of CO2 between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere is an important component of the Earth's climate system. Atmospheric budgets are used to quantify this exchange globally, but these estimates are difficult to evaluate on a regional basis. We used a unique set of aircraft data to evaluate a set of state‐of‐the‐science estimates of ecosystem‐atmosphere CO2 exchange in temperate North America. Nearly every estimate underestimated the seasonal amplitude of ecosystem‐atmosphere CO2 exchange (net photosynthesis too weak in the summer; respiration too weak in the winter) in this region. The source of atmospheric CO2 data did not influence this finding. More study is needed to determine both the cause of these seasonal biases and the impact of this bias on annual net CO2 flux estimates. Key Points: The seasonal amplitude of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO2 in the central and eastern temperate North America is underestimated in global atmospheric inversionsThe seasonal bias is not significantly different between inversions using OCO‐2 v9 land nadir/glint observations and in situ observationsThe largest NEE biases are observed in U.S. croplands and eastern forests [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Robust estimates of CO 2 budget, CO 2 exchanged between the atmosphere and terrestrial biosphere, are necessary to better understand the role of the terrestrial biosphere in mitigating anthropogenic CO 2 emissions. Over the past decade, this field of research has advanced through understanding of the differences and similarities of two fundamentally different approaches: "top-down" atmospheric inversions and "bottom-up" biosphere models. Since the first studies were undertaken, these approaches have shown an increasing level of agreement, but disagreements in some regions still persist, in part because they do not estimate the same quantity of atmosphere-biosphere CO 2 exchange. Here, we conducted a thorough comparison of CO 2 budgets at multiple scales and from multiple methods to assess the current state of the science in estimating CO 2 budgets. Our set of atmospheric inversions and biosphere models, which were adjusted for a consistent flux definition, showed a high level of agreement for global and hemispheric CO 2 budgets in the 2000s. Regionally, improved agreement in CO 2 budgets was notable for North America and Southeast Asia. However, large gaps between the two methods remained in East Asia and South America. In other regions, Europe, boreal Asia, Africa, South Asia, and Oceania, it was difficult to determine whether those regions act as a net sink or source because of the large spread in estimates from atmospheric inversions. These results highlight two research directions to improve the robustness of CO 2 budgets: (a) to increase representation of processes in biosphere models that could contribute to fill the budget gaps, such as forest regrowth and forest degradation; and (b) to reduce sink-source compensation between regions (dipoles) in atmospheric inversion so that their estimates become more comparable. Advancements on both research areas will increase the level of agreement between the top-down and bottom-up approaches and yield more robust knowledge of regional CO 2 budgets., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)