Land surface model parameter optimisation using in situ flux data : Comparison of gradient-based versus random search algorithms (a case study using ORCHIDEE v1.9.5.2)

This work used eddy covariance data acquired by the FLUXNET community and in particular by the following networks: AmeriFlux (U.S. Department of Energy, Biological and Environmental Research, Terrestrial Carbon Program; DE-FG02-04ER63917 and DE-FG02-04ER63911), AfriFlux, AsiaFlux, CarboAfrica, CarboEuropeIP, CarboItaly, CarboMont, ChinaFlux, Fluxnet-Canada (supported by CFCAS, NSERC, BIOCAP, Environment Canada, and NRCan), GreenGrass, KoFlux, LBA, NECC, OzFlux, TCOS-Siberia and USCCC. We acknowledge the financial support to the eddy covariance data harmonisation provided by CarboEuropeIP, FAO-GTOS-TCO, iLEAPS, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, Universiteì Laval, Environment Canada and US Department of Energy and the database development and technical support from Berkeley Water Center, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Microsoft Research eScience, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, University of California – Berkeley and the University of Virginia.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Reconciling the Carbon Balance of Northern Sweden Through Integration of Observations and Modelling

The boreal biome plays an important role in the global carbon cycle. However, current estimates of its sink-source strength and responses to changes in climate are primarily derived from models and thus remain uncertain. A major challenge is the validation of these models at a regional scale since empirical flux estimates are typically confined to ecosystem or continental scales. The Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS)-Svartberget atmospheric station (SVB) provides observations including tall tower eddy covariance (EC) and atmospheric concentration measurements that can contribute to such validation in Northern Sweden. Thus, the overall aim of this study was to quantify the carbon balance in Northern Sweden region by integrating land-atmosphere fluxes and atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations. There were three specific objectives. First, to compare flux estimates from four models (VPRM, LPJ-GUESS, ORCHIDEE, and SiBCASA) to tall tower EC measurements at SVB during the years 2016-2018. Second to assess the fluxes' impact on atmospheric CO2 concentrations using a regional transport model. Third, to assess the impact of the drought in 2018. The comparison of estimated concentrations with ICOS observations helped the evaluation of the models' regional scale performance. Both the simulations and observations indicate there were similar reductions in the net CO2 uptake during drought. All the models (except for SiBCASA) and observations indicated the region was a net carbon sink during the 3-year study period. Our study highlights a need to improve vegetation models through comparisons with empirical data and demonstrate the ICOS network's potential utility for constraining CO2 fluxes in the region

Process-oriented analysis of dominant sources of uncertainty in the land carbon sink

The observed global net land carbon sink is captured by current land models. All models agree that atmospheric CO$_{2}$ and nitrogen deposition driven gains in carbon stocks are partially offset by climate and land-use and land-cover change (LULCC) losses. However, there is a lack of consensus in the partitioning of the sink between vegetation and soil, where models do not even agree on the direction of change in carbon stocks over the past 60 years. This uncertainty is driven by plant productivity, allocation, and turnover response to atmospheric CO$_{2}$ (and to a smaller extent to LULCC), and the response of soil to LULCC (and to a lesser extent climate). Overall, differences in turnover explain ~70% of model spread in both vegetation and soil carbon changes. Further analysis of internal plant and soil (individual pools) cycling is needed to reduce uncertainty in the controlling processes behind the global land carbon sink

Evaluating the performance of land surface model ORCHIDEE-CAN v1.0 on water and energy flux estimation with a single- and multi-layer energy budget scheme

Canopy structure is one of the most important vegetation characteristics for land-atmosphere interactions, as it determines the energy and scalar exchanges between the land surface and the overlying air mass. In this study we evaluated the performance of a newly developed multilayer energy budget in the ORCHIDEE-CAN v1.0 land surface model (Organising Carbon and Hydrology In Dynamic Ecosystems - CANopy), which simulates canopy structure and can be coupled to an atmospheric model using an implicit coupling procedure. We aim to provide a set of accept-able parameter values for a range of forest types. Top-canopy and sub-canopy flux observations from eight sites were collected in order to conduct this evaluation. The sites crossed climate zones from temperate to boreal and the vegetation types included deciduous, evergreen broad-leaved and evergreen needle-leaved forest with a maximum leaf area index (LAI; all-sided) ranging from 3.5 to 7.0. The parametrization approach proposed in this study was based on three selected physical processes - namely the diffusion, advection, and turbulent mixing within the canopy. Short-term sub-canopy observations and long-term surface fluxes were used to calibrate the parameters in the sub-canopy radiation, turbulence, and resistance modules with an automatic tuning process. The multi-layer model was found to capture the dynamics of sub-canopy turbulence, temperature, and energy fluxes. The performance of the new multi-layer model was further compared against the existing single-layer model. Although the multi-layer model simulation results showed few or no improvements to both the nighttime energy balance and energy partitioning during winter compared with a single-layer model simulation, the increased model complexity does provide a more detailed description of the canopy micrometeorology of various forest types. The multi-layer model links to potential future environmental and ecological studies such as the assessment of in-canopy species vulnerability to climate change, the climate effects of disturbance intensities and frequencies, and the consequences of biogenic volatile organic compound (BVOC) emissions from the terrestrial ecosystem.Peer reviewe

The consolidated European synthesis of CH4 and N2O emissions for the European Union and United Kingdom : 1990-2019

Funding Information: We thank Aurélie Paquirissamy, Géraud Moulas and the ARTTIC team for the great managerial support offered during the project. FAOSTAT statistics are produced and disseminated with the support of its member countries to the FAO regular budget. Annual, gap-filled and harmonized NGHGI uncertainty estimates for the EU and its member states were provided by the EU GHG inventory team (European Environment Agency and its European Topic Centre on Climate change mitigation). Most top-down inverse simulations referred to in this paper rely for the derivation of optimized flux fields on observational data provided by surface stations that are part of networks like ICOS (datasets: 10.18160/P7E9-EKEA , Integrated Non-CO Observing System, 2018a, and 10.18160/B3Q6-JKA0 , Integrated Non-CO Observing System, 2018b), AGAGE, NOAA (Obspack Globalview CH: 10.25925/20221001 , Schuldt et al., 2017), CSIRO and/or WMO GAW. We thank all station PIs and their organizations for providing these valuable datasets. We acknowledge the work of other members of the EDGAR group (Edwin Schaaf, Jos Olivier) and the outstanding scientific contribution to the VERIFY project of Peter Bergamaschi. Timo Vesala thanks ICOS-Finland, University of Helsinki. The TM5-CAMS inversions are available from https://atmosphere.copernicus.eu (last access: June 2022); Arjo Segers acknowledges support from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service, implemented by the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts on behalf of the European Commission (grant no. CAMS2_55). This research has been supported by the European Commission, Horizon 2020 Framework Programme (VERIFY, grant no. 776810). Ronny Lauerwald received support from the CLand Convergence Institute. Prabir Patra received support from the Environment Research and Technology Development Fund (grant no. JPMEERF20182002) of the Environmental Restoration and Conservation Agency of Japan. Pierre Regnier received financial support from the H2020 project ESM2025 – Earth System Models for the Future (grant no. 101003536). David Basviken received support from the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (METLAKE, grant no. 725546). Greet Janssens-Maenhout received support from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (CoCO, grant no. 958927). Tuula Aalto received support from the Finnish Academy (grants nos. 351311 and 345531). Sönke Zhaele received support from the ERC consolidator grant QUINCY (grant no. 647204).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Global carbon budget 2019

Accurate assessment of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions and their redistribution among the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere – the “global carbon budget” – is important to better understand the global carbon cycle, support the development of climate policies, and project future climate change. Here we describe data sets and methodology to quantify the five major components of the global carbon budget and their uncertainties. Fossil CO2 emissions (EFF) are based on energy statistics and cement production data, while emissions from land use change (ELUC), mainly deforestation, are based on land use and land use change data and bookkeeping models. Atmospheric CO2 concentration is measured directly and its growth rate (GATM) is computed from the annual changes in concentration. The ocean CO2 sink (SOCEAN) and terrestrial CO2 sink (SLAND) are estimated with global process models constrained by observations. The resulting carbon budget imbalance (BIM), the difference between the estimated total emissions and the estimated changes in the atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial biosphere, is a measure of imperfect data and understanding of the contemporary carbon cycle. All uncertainties are reported as ±1σ. For the last decade available (2009–2018), EFF was 9.5±0.5 GtC yr−1, ELUC 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, GATM 4.9±0.02 GtC yr−1 (2.3±0.01 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN 2.5±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND 3.2±0.6 GtC yr−1, with a budget imbalance BIM of 0.4 GtC yr−1 indicating overestimated emissions and/or underestimated sinks. For the year 2018 alone, the growth in EFF was about 2.1 % and fossil emissions increased to 10.0±0.5 GtC yr−1, reaching 10 GtC yr−1 for the first time in history, ELUC was 1.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, for total anthropogenic CO2 emissions of 11.5±0.9 GtC yr−1 (42.5±3.3 GtCO2). Also for 2018, GATM was 5.1±0.2 GtC yr−1 (2.4±0.1 ppm yr−1), SOCEAN was 2.6±0.6 GtC yr−1, and SLAND was 3.5±0.7 GtC yr−1, with a BIM of 0.3 GtC. The global atmospheric CO2 concentration reached 407.38±0.1 ppm averaged over 2018. For 2019, preliminary data for the first 6–10 months indicate a reduced growth in EFF of +0.6 % (range of −0.2 % to 1.5 %) based on national emissions projections for China, the USA, the EU, and India and projections of gross domestic product corrected for recent changes in the carbon intensity of the economy for the rest of the world. Overall, the mean and trend in the five components of the global carbon budget are consistently estimated over the period 1959–2018, but discrepancies of up to 1 GtC yr−1 persist for the representation of semi-decadal variability in CO2 fluxes. A detailed comparison among individual estimates and the introduction of a broad range of observations shows (1) no consensus in the mean and trend in land use change emissions over the last decade, (2) a persistent low agreement between the different methods on the magnitude of the land CO2 flux in the northern extra-tropics, and (3) an apparent underestimation of the CO2 variability by ocean models outside the tropics. This living data update documents changes in the methods and data sets used in this new global carbon budget and the progress in understanding of the global carbon cycle compared with previous publications of this data set (Le Quéré et al., 2018a, b, 2016, 2015a, b, 2014, 2013). The data generated by this work are available at https://doi.org/10.18160/gcp-2019 (Friedlingstein et al., 2019)

The consolidated European synthesis of CO2 emissions and removals for the European Union and United Kingdom: 1990–2020

Quantification of land surface–atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2) and their trends and uncertainties is essential for monitoring progress of the EU27+UK bloc as it strives to meet ambitious targets determined by both international agreements and internal regulation. This study provides a consolidated synthesis of fossil sources (CO2 fossil) and natural (including formally managed ecosystems) sources and sinks over land (CO2 land) using bottom-up (BU) and top-down (TD) approaches for the European Union and United Kingdom (EU27+UK), updating earlier syntheses (Petrescu et al., 2020, 2021). Given the wide scope of the work and the variety of approaches involved, this study aims to answer essential questions identified in the previous syntheses and understand the differences between datasets, particularly for poorly characterized fluxes from managed and unmanaged ecosystems. The work integrates updated emission inventory data, process-based model results, data-driven categorical model results, and inverse modeling estimates, extending the previous period 1990–2018 to the year 2020 to the extent possible. BU and TD products are compared with the European national greenhouse gas inventory (NGHGI) reported by parties including the year 2019 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The uncertainties of the EU27+UK NGHGI were evaluated using the standard deviation reported by the EU member states following the guidelines of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and harmonized by gap-filling procedures. Variation in estimates produced with other methods, such as atmospheric inversion models (TD) or spatially disaggregated inventory datasets (BU), originate from within-model uncertainty related to parameterization as well as structural differences between models. By comparing the NGHGI with other approaches, key sources of differences between estimates arise primarily in activities. System boundaries and emission categories create differences in CO2 fossil datasets, while different land use definitions for reporting emissions from land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) activities result in differences for CO2 land. The latter has important consequences for atmospheric inversions, leading to inversions reporting stronger sinks in vegetation and soils than are reported by the NGHGI. For CO2 fossil emissions, after harmonizing estimates based on common activities and selecting the most recent year available for all datasets, the UNFCCC NGHGI for the EU27+UK accounts for 926 ± 13 Tg C yr−1, while eight other BU sources report a mean value of 948 [937,961] Tg C yr−1 (25th, 75th percentiles). The sole top-down inversion of fossil emissions currently available accounts for 875 Tg C in this same year, a value outside the uncertainty of both the NGHGI and bottom-up ensemble estimates and for which uncertainty estimates are not currently available. For the net CO2 land fluxes, during the most recent 5-year period including the NGHGI estimates, the NGHGI accounted for −91 ± 32 Tg C yr−1, while six other BU approaches reported a mean sink of −62 [] Tg C yr−1, and a 15-member ensemble of dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs) reported −69 [] Tg C yr−1. The 5-year mean of three TD regional ensembles combined with one non-ensemble inversion of −73 Tg C yr−1 has a slightly smaller spread (0th–100th percentiles of [] Tg C yr−1), and it was calculated after removing net land–atmosphere CO2 fluxes caused by lateral transport of carbon (crop trade, wood trade, river transport, and net uptake from inland water bodies), resulting in increased agreement with the NGHGI and bottom-up approaches. Results at the category level (Forest Land, Cropland, Grassland) generally show good agreement between the NGHGI and category-specific models, but results for DGVMs are mixed. Overall, for both CO2 fossil and net CO2 land fluxes, we find that current independent approaches are consistent with the NGHGI at the scale of the EU27+UK. We conclude that CO2 emissions from fossil sources have decreased over the past 30 years in the EU27+UK, while land fluxes are relatively stable: positive or negative trends larger (smaller) than 0.07 (−0.61) Tg C yr−2 can be ruled out for the NGHGI. In addition, a gap on the order of 1000 Tg C yr−1 between CO2 fossil emissions and net CO2 uptake by the land exists regardless of the type of approach (NGHGI, TD, BU), falling well outside all available estimates of uncertainties. However, uncertainties in top-down approaches to estimate CO2 fossil emissions remain uncharacterized and are likely substantial, in addition to known uncertainties in top-down estimates of the land fluxes. The data used to plot the figures are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8148461 (McGrath et al., 2023)

Using soil moisture and land surface temperature Earth observations to optimize land surface model performance

International audienc