Articles | Volume 15, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5547-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-5547-2022
Development and technical paper
 | 
20 Jul 2022
Development and technical paper |  | 20 Jul 2022

Computationally efficient methods for large-scale atmospheric inverse modeling

Taewon Cho, Julianne Chung, Scot M. Miller, and Arvind K. Saibaba

Related authors

National CO2 budgets (2015–2020) inferred from atmospheric CO2 observations in support of the global stocktake
Brendan Byrne, David F. Baker, Sourish Basu, Michael Bertolacci, Kevin W. Bowman, Dustin Carroll, Abhishek Chatterjee, Frédéric Chevallier, Philippe Ciais, Noel Cressie, David Crisp, Sean Crowell, Feng Deng, Zhu Deng, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Manvendra K. Dubey, Sha Feng, Omaira E. García, David W. T. Griffith, Benedikt Herkommer, Lei Hu, Andrew R. Jacobson, Rajesh Janardanan, Sujong Jeong, Matthew S. Johnson, Dylan B. A. Jones, Rigel Kivi, Junjie Liu, Zhiqiang Liu, Shamil Maksyutov, John B. Miller, Scot M. Miller, Isamu Morino, Justus Notholt, Tomohiro Oda, Christopher W. O'Dell, Young-Suk Oh, Hirofumi Ohyama, Prabir K. Patra, Hélène Peiro, Christof Petri, Sajeev Philip, David F. Pollard, Benjamin Poulter, Marine Remaud, Andrew Schuh, Mahesh K. Sha, Kei Shiomi, Kimberly Strong, Colm Sweeney, Yao Té, Hanqin Tian, Voltaire A. Velazco, Mihalis Vrekoussis, Thorsten Warneke, John R. Worden, Debra Wunch, Yuanzhi Yao, Jeongmin Yun, Andrew Zammit-Mangion, and Ning Zeng
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 15, 963–1004, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-963-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-963-2023, 2023
Short summary
Data reduction for inverse modeling: an adaptive approach v1.0
Xiaoling Liu, August L. Weinbren, He Chang, Jovan M. Tadić, Marikate E. Mountain, Michael E. Trudeau, Arlyn E. Andrews, Zichong Chen, and Scot M. Miller
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 4683–4696, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4683-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-4683-2021, 2021
Short summary
Linking global terrestrial CO2 fluxes and environmental drivers: inferences from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 satellite and terrestrial biospheric models
Zichong Chen, Junjie Liu, Daven K. Henze, Deborah N. Huntzinger, Kelley C. Wells, Stephen Sitch, Pierre Friedlingstein, Emilie Joetzjer, Vladislav Bastrikov, Daniel S. Goll, Vanessa Haverd, Atul K. Jain, Etsushi Kato, Sebastian Lienert, Danica L. Lombardozzi, Patrick C. McGuire, Joe R. Melton, Julia E. M. S. Nabel, Benjamin Poulter, Hanqin Tian, Andrew J. Wiltshire, Sönke Zaehle, and Scot M. Miller
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 21, 6663–6680, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-21-6663-2021, 2021
Short summary
Geostatistical inverse modeling with very large datasets: an example from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) satellite
Scot M. Miller, Arvind K. Saibaba, Michael E. Trudeau, Marikate E. Mountain, and Arlyn E. Andrews
Geosci. Model Dev., 13, 1771–1785, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1771-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-13-1771-2020, 2020
Short summary
The impact of improved satellite retrievals on estimates of biospheric carbon balance
Scot M. Miller and Anna M. Michalak
Atmos. Chem. Phys., 20, 323–331, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-323-2020,https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-20-323-2020, 2020
Short summary

Related subject area

Atmospheric sciences
Evaluating WRF-GC v2.0 predictions of boundary layer height and vertical ozone profile during the 2021 TRACER-AQ campaign in Houston, Texas
Xueying Liu, Yuxuan Wang, Shailaja Wasti, Wei Li, Ehsan Soleimanian, James Flynn, Travis Griggs, Sergio Alvarez, John T. Sullivan, Maurice Roots, Laurence Twigg, Guillaume Gronoff, Timothy Berkoff, Paul Walter, Mark Estes, Johnathan W. Hair, Taylor Shingler, Amy Jo Scarino, Marta Fenn, and Laura Judd
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5493–5514, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5493-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5493-2023, 2023
Short summary
An optimisation method to improve modelling of wet deposition in atmospheric transport models: applied to FLEXPART v10.4
Stijn Van Leuven, Pieter De Meutter, Johan Camps, Piet Termonia, and Andy Delcloo
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5323–5338, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5323-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5323-2023, 2023
Short summary
Modelling concentration heterogeneities in streets using the street-network model MUNICH
Thibaud Sarica, Alice Maison, Yelva Roustan, Matthias Ketzel, Steen Solvang Jensen, Youngseob Kim, Christophe Chaillou, and Karine Sartelet
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5281–5303, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5281-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5281-2023, 2023
Short summary
Simulation model of Reactive Nitrogen Species in an Urban Atmosphere using a Deep Neural Network: RNDv1.0
Junsu Gil, Meehye Lee, Jeonghwan Kim, Gangwoong Lee, Joonyoung Ahn, and Cheol-Hee Kim
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5251–5263, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5251-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5251-2023, 2023
Short summary
J-GAIN v1.1: a flexible tool to incorporate aerosol formation rates obtained by molecular models into large-scale models
Daniel Yazgi and Tinja Olenius
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 5237–5249, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5237-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-5237-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Baker, D. F., Doney, S. C., and Schimel, D. S.: Variational data assimilation for atmospheric CO2, Tellus B, 58, 359–365, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0889.2006.00218.x, 2006. a
Bardsley, J.: Computational Uncertainty Quantification for Inverse Problems, Computer Science and Engineering, SIAM, ISBN 978-1-611975-37-6, 2018. a
Barlow, J. L.: Reorthogonalization for the Golub–Kahan–Lanczos bidiagonal reduction, Numer. Math., 124, 237–278, 2013. a
Benning, M. and Burger, M.: Modern regularization methods for inverse problems, Acta Numer., 27, 1–111, 2018. a
Björck, Å.: Numerical Methods for Least Squares Problems, SIAM, Philadelphia, https://doi.org/10.1137/1.9781611971484, 1996. a
Download
Short summary
Atmospheric inverse modeling describes the process of estimating greenhouse gas fluxes or air pollution emissions at the Earth's surface using observations of these gases collected in the atmosphere. The launch of new satellites, the expansion of surface observation networks, and a desire for more detailed maps of surface fluxes have yielded numerous computational and statistical challenges. This article describes computationally efficient methods for large-scale atmospheric inverse modeling.