Articles | Volume 17, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1133-2024
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1133-2024
Methods for assessment of models
 | 
12 Feb 2024
Methods for assessment of models |  | 12 Feb 2024

Functional analysis of variance (ANOVA) for carbon flux estimates from remote sensing data

Jonathan Hobbs, Matthias Katzfuss, Hai Nguyen, Vineet Yadav, and Junjie Liu

Related authors

Forward Model Emulator for Atmospheric Radiative Transfer Using Gaussian Processes And Cross Validation
Otto M. Lamminpää, Jouni I. Susiluoto, Jonathan M. Hobbs, James L. McDuffie, Amy J. Braverman, and Houman Owhadi
Atmos. Meas. Tech. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-63,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-2024-63, 2024
Preprint under review for AMT
Short summary
A singular value decomposition framework for retrievals with vertical distribution information from greenhouse gas column absorption spectroscopy measurements
Anand K. Ramanathan, Hai M. Nguyen, Xiaoli Sun, Jianping Mao, James B. Abshire, Jonathan M. Hobbs, and Amy J. Braverman
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 11, 4909–4928, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4909-2018,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-11-4909-2018, 2018
Short summary
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2: first 18 months of science data products
Annmarie Eldering, Chris W. O'Dell, Paul O. Wennberg, David Crisp, Michael R. Gunson, Camille Viatte, Charles Avis, Amy Braverman, Rebecca Castano, Albert Chang, Lars Chapsky, Cecilia Cheng, Brian Connor, Lan Dang, Gary Doran, Brendan Fisher, Christian Frankenberg, Dejian Fu, Robert Granat, Jonathan Hobbs, Richard A. M. Lee, Lukas Mandrake, James McDuffie, Charles E. Miller, Vicky Myers, Vijay Natraj, Denis O'Brien, Gregory B. Osterman, Fabiano Oyafuso, Vivienne H. Payne, Harold R. Pollock, Igor Polonsky, Coleen M. Roehl, Robert Rosenberg, Florian Schwandner, Mike Smyth, Vivian Tang, Thomas E. Taylor, Cathy To, Debra Wunch, and Jan Yoshimizu
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 10, 549–563, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-549-2017,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-10-549-2017, 2017
Short summary
Quantification of uncertainties in OCO-2 measurements of XCO2: simulations and linear error analysis
Brian Connor, Hartmut Bösch, James McDuffie, Tommy Taylor, Dejian Fu, Christian Frankenberg, Chris O'Dell, Vivienne H. Payne, Michael Gunson, Randy Pollock, Jonathan Hobbs, Fabiano Oyafuso, and Yibo Jiang
Atmos. Meas. Tech., 9, 5227–5238, https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-5227-2016,https://doi.org/10.5194/amt-9-5227-2016, 2016
Short summary

Related subject area

Earth and space science informatics
Focal-TSMP: deep learning for vegetation health prediction and agricultural drought assessment from a regional climate simulation
Mohamad Hakam Shams Eddin and Juergen Gall
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2987–3023, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2987-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2987-2024, 2024
Short summary
Tomofast-x 2.0: an open-source parallel code for inversion of potential field data with topography using wavelet compression
Vitaliy Ogarko, Kim Frankcombe, Taige Liu, Jeremie Giraud, Roland Martin, and Mark Jessell
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 2325–2345, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2325-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-2325-2024, 2024
Short summary
The 4D reconstruction of dynamic geological evolution processes for renowned geological features
Jiateng Guo, Zhibin Liu, Xulei Wang, Lixin Wu, Shanjun Liu, and Yunqiang Li
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 847–864, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-847-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-847-2024, 2024
Short summary
Accelerating Lagrangian transport simulations on graphics processing units: performance optimizations of MPTRAC v2.6
Lars Hoffmann, Kaveh Haghighi Mood, Andreas Herten, Markus Hrywniak, Jiri Kraus, Jan Clemens, and Mingzhao Liu
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2547,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2547, 2024
Short summary
Machine learning for numerical weather and climate modelling: a review
Catherine O. de Burgh-Day and Tennessee Leeuwenburg
Geosci. Model Dev., 16, 6433–6477, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6433-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-16-6433-2023, 2023
Short summary

Cited articles

Baker, D. F., Law, R. M., Gurney, K. R., Rayner, P., Peylin, P., Denning, A. S., Bousquet, P., Bruhwiler, L., Chen, Y.-H., Ciais, P., Fung, I. Y., Heimann, M., John, J., Maki, T., Maksyutov, S., Masarie, K., Prather, M., Pak, B., Taguchi, S., and Zhu, Z.: TransCom 3 inversion intercomparison: Impact of transport model errors on the interannual variability of regional CO2 fluxes, 1988–2003, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 20, GB1002, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002439, 2006. a
Baker, D. F., Bösch, H., Doney, S. C., O'Brien, D., and Schimel, D. S.: Carbon source/sink information provided by column CO2 measurements from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 10, 4145–4165, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-10-4145-2010, 2010. a
Baker, D. F., Bell, E., Davis, K. J., Campbell, J. F., Lin, B., and Dobler, J.: A new exponentially decaying error correlation model for assimilating OCO-2 column-average CO2 data using a length scale computed from airborne lidar measurements, Geosci. Model Dev., 15, 649–668, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-15-649-2022, 2022. a, b, c
Basu, S., Baker, D. F., Chevallier, F., Patra, P. K., Liu, J., and Miller, J. B.: The impact of transport model differences on CO2 surface flux estimates from OCO-2 retrievals of column average CO2, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 7189–7215, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-7189-2018, 2018. a
Byrne, B., Jones, D. B. A., Strong, K., Polavarapu, S. M., Harper, A. B., Baker, D. F., and Maksyutov, S.: On what scales can GOSAT flux inversions constrain anomalies in terrestrial ecosystems?, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 19, 13017–13035, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-19-13017-2019, 2019. a
Download
Short summary
The cycling of carbon among the land, oceans, and atmosphere is a closely monitored process in the global climate system. These exchanges between the atmosphere and the surface can be quantified using a combination of atmospheric carbon dioxide observations and computer models. This study presents a statistical method for investigating the similarities and differences in the estimated surface–atmosphere carbon exchange when different computer model assumptions are invoked.