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
Revised manuscript 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
Random forests with spatial proxies for environmental modelling: opportunities and pitfalls
Carles Milà, Marvin Ludwig, Edzer Pebesma, Cathryn Tonne, and Hanna Meyer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 6007–6033, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6007-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-6007-2024, 2024
Short summary
An improved global pressure and zenith wet delay model with optimized vertical correction considering the spatiotemporal variability in multiple height-scale factors
Chunhua Jiang, Xiang Gao, Huizhong Zhu, Shuaimin Wang, Sixuan Liu, Shaoni Chen, and Guangsheng Liu
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5939–5959, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5939-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5939-2024, 2024
Short summary
kNNDM CV: k-fold nearest-neighbour distance matching cross-validation for map accuracy estimation
Jan Linnenbrink, Carles Milà, Marvin Ludwig, and Hanna Meyer
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 5897–5912, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5897-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-5897-2024, 2024
Short summary
Remote sensing-based high-resolution mapping of the forest canopy height: some models are useful, but might they be even more if combined?
Nikola Besic, Nicolas Picard, Cédric Vega, Lionel Hertzog, Jean-Pierre Renaud, Fajwel Fogel, Agnès Pellissier-Tanon, Gabriel Destouet, Milena Planells-Rodriguez, and Philippe Ciais
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-95,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-95, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
Short summary
GNNWR: An Open-Source Package of Spatiotemporal Intelligent Regression Methods for Modeling Spatial and Temporal Non-Stationarity
Ziyu Yin, Jiale Ding, Yi Liu, Ruoxu Wang, Yige Wang, Yijun Chen, Jin Qi, Sensen Wu, and Zhenhong Du
Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-62,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2024-62, 2024
Revised manuscript accepted for GMD
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.