Fit to Data

One way to verify the quality of the results is to check how well the inversion is able to fit the measurements. Taylor diagrams are useful in this context since they provide a visual framework for comparing model results to observations and show how closely the simulated patterns match the observations. Basically, the diagram summarizes correlation coefficients, root mean squared errors, and standard deviations of several models in a single plot (Taylor, 2001). Therefore, the comparison between the simulated and observed CO2

concentrations at the 40 stations (listed in table 3.1) used in this study are represented with Taylor diagrams.

In these Taylor diagrams, the position of each dot appearing on the plot quantifies how closely the modeled concentrations match the observations. The centered root-mean-square (RMS) difference between the simulated and observed patterns is proportional to the distance to the point on the x-axis identified as “1.0”, which is the observations.

It reflects the full agreement in shape and phasing. The normalized standard deviation of the simulated pattern (dividing the standard deviation of simulated by the standard deviation of the observed) is proportional to the radial distance from the origin and it represents the agreement in the amplitude of the variability between the modeled and observed concentrations. In general, simulated patterns that agree well with observations (have relatively high correlation and low RMS errors) will lie nearest the point marked

“1.0” on the x-axis. Models lying on the same arc of the observation will have the correct standard deviation (which indicates that the pattern variations are of the right amplitude).

Figure 3.9 shows Taylor diagrams for the seasonal cycles (the data has been de-seasonalized and de-trended and filtered to remove only the short-term synoptic variations (less than 3 months) of the modeled CO2 concentrations from SDPRM-inv (a-priori and a-posteriori) as well as from STD-inv (a-posteriori). Also, figure 3.10 shows similar diagrams but for the interannual variation (the data have been de-seasonalized and filtered for interannual variability (IAV) (as in R¨odenbeck (2005)) of the modeled and the observed concentrations.

The mean seasonal cycle and the long-term trend have been subtracted from the time series to highlight the short-term and interannual variations.

Based on that, in figure 3.9, it can be seen that the modeled concentrations using the a-posteriori flux estimates from SDPRM-STD-inv are shifted from their a-priori concen-trations to be closer to the observations, in particular for the stations CBA, SIS, SHM, RYO, ALT, ICE, CMN, BRW, IZO, BAL, and LMP (for the full names and the location of each station see table 3.1, and figure 3.1)). Interestingly, for the station HUN (Hegyhat-sal, Hungary), the amplitude of the simulated concentrations from SDPRM-inv generally

100 3 Atmospheric CO2 Inversion

agree very well with the observations in comparison with the simulation from STD-inv (see table 3.3). This indicates that SDPRM is producing land fluxes (a-priori) that match the atmospheric signal well. In addition, figure 3.11 shows the time series of the seasonal cycle of the simulated and observed concentrations at three stations as examples (ALT:

Alert, Canada, CMN: Monte Cimone, Italy, and CGO:Cape Grim, Tasmania). The figure shows that the modeled concentration from SDPRM-inv has been improved to match the shape and the phase of the observations. This is also true for the station CGO, which has a small seasonal cycle (see table 3.3).

Table 3.3— Statistics from Taylor diagrams for the seasonal cycles of modeled and observed CO2

concentrations from SDPRM-inv and STD-inv at selected stations : HUN (Hegyhatsal, Hungary), ALT (Alert, Canada), CMN (Monte Cimone, Italy), and CGO (Cape Grim, Tasmania).

Correlation coefficients Relative amplitudes

Station w.r.t. observation Amplitudes (ppm) w.r.t. observation

HUN

Modeled seasonal cycles of the CO2 concentrations from SDPRM-inv for some coastal stations, like CFA and BHD, have very low correlation and much larger variations than observations. These sites are under oceanic control, which may explain this mismatch.

Similarly, some sites have a large response to the background fossil fuel fluxes (e.g. BAL, HUN), and hence errors in these fluxes can explain the mismatches between the modeled and observed concentrations. Moreover, as previously mentioned, R_eco and GPP are the only processes included in the land fluxes in SDPRM-inv system. Therefore, some of the missing processes (e.g. biomass burning) which have some impact on the atmospheric CO₂ concentrations may also explain the differences between the modeled and observed concentrations. Furthermore, the atmospheric transport model can produce large errors in the modeled concentrations (Gurney et al., 2002).

3.2 The coupled inversion system (SDPRM-inv) 101

The Taylor diagrams in figure 3.10 are similar to those in figure 3.9 but for the internnual variations of modeled and observed concentrations. In general, it can be seen that both the a-posteriori and a-priori concentrations from SDPRM-inv have low correlations with the observations. This is also clear in figure 3.12, which shows the time series of the interannual variability of the simulated and observed concentrations at three stations (ALT: Alert, Canada, CMN: Monte Cimone, Italy, and CGO:Cape Grim, Tasmania) (see also table 3.4 for the statistics). This indicates that the minimization algorithm has more capability to adjust the seasonal cycle compared to the interannual variability in the SDPRM-inv. This could be for many reasons. One reason is that SDPRM does not provide sufficient degrees of freedom (only 24 parameters to be adjusted), and hence the minimization algorithm cannot satisfy all temporal variability in the data. Another possibility is that the impacts of the processes that may affect the internnual variability are not included in the model. One possibility to investigate this is to use different degrees of freedom (to be adjusted independently) that have different effect on the seasonal cycle and the interannual variability.

Table 3.4— Statistics from Taylor diagrams for the interannual variability of modeled and observed CO2

concentrations from SDPRM-inv and STD-inv at selected stations : HUN (Hegyhatsal, Hungary), ALT (Alert, Canada), CMN (Monte Cimone, Italy), and CGO (Cape Grim, Tasmania).

Correlation coefficients Relative amplitudes

Station w.r.t. observation Amplitudes (ppm) w.r.t. observation

HUN

102 3 Atmospheric CO2 Inversion

Figure3.9—TaylordiagramsforthemeanseasonalcycleoftheobservedandsimulatedCO2concentrationsfor40observingsitesusedinthisstudy.Orange:Observations,BlueandMagenta:a-posteriorianda-priori,respectively,fromSDPRM-inv,andBlack:a-posteriorifromSTD-inv.Thedatahavebeende-seasonalized,de-trendedandfilteredtoremoveonlytheshort-termvariations(lessthan3months).

3.2 The coupled inversion system (SDPRM-inv) 103

Figure3.10—Asfigure3.9butfortheinterannualvariability(IAV).Thedatahavebeende-seasonalized,de-trendedandfilteredtoremovethe short-termvariations(lessthan1year).

104 3 Atmospheric CO2 Inversion

Figure 3.11— The mean seasonal cycle of the observed and simulated CO2concentrations for three observation sites (ALT: Alert, Canada, CMN: Monte Cimone, Italy, and CGO:Cape Grim, Tasmania) used in this study. The time series are plotted for two years for the demonstration. Orange: Observation, Blue and Magenta: a-posteriori and a-priori, respectively, from SDPRM-inv, and Black: a-posteriori from STD-inv. The data have been de-seasonalized and de-trended and filtered to remove the short-term variations (less than 3 months).

3.2 The coupled inversion system (SDPRM-inv) 105

Figure 3.12—As figure 3.11 but for the interannual variability (IAV). The data has been de-seasonalized, de-trended and filtered to remove the short-term variations (less than 1 year).

106 3 Atmospheric CO2 Inversion