1. Inversion plan and current progress on MCI Andrew Schuh Colorado State University MCI Workshop June 17, 2009

2. Inverse Modeling of CO 2 Air Parcel Sources Sinks wind Sample Changes in CO 2 in the air tell us about sources and sinks What is an atmospheric CO 2 inversion?

3. Inverse Modeling of CO 2 Air Parcel Sources Sinks wind Sample Changes in CO 2 in the air tell us about sources and sinks What is an atmospheric CO 2 inversion? Prior Guess for sources and sinks (SiB3)

4. Prior Guess for NEE (SiB3)

5. Inverse Modeling of CO 2 Air Parcel Sources Sinks wind Sample Changes in CO 2 in the air tell us about sources and sinks What is an atmospheric CO 2 inversion? LPDM particle transport model

6. Black: air parcels in contact with surface Red: air parcels reach lateral boundaries (20 days of “upstream” transport in 50 seconds) SiB-RAMS-LPDM Back-Trajectories from WLEF Tower (400 m TV tower near Park Falls, WI)

7. Inverse Modeling of CO 2 Air Parcel Sources Sinks wind Sample Changes in CO 2 in the air tell us about sources and sinks What is an atmospheric CO 2 inversion? High precision CO2 observations (NOAA, PSU, Ameriflux, EnvironCanada)

8. Seasonal cycle 31-day running mean Strong coherent seasonal cycle across stations West Branch (wbi) and Centerville (ce) differ significantly from 2007 to 2008 Large variance in seasonal drawdown, despite being separated by, at most, 550 km Mauna Loa wbi aircraft

9. Inverse Modeling of CO 2 Air Parcel Sources Sinks wind Sample Changes in CO 2 in the air tell us about sources and sinks What is an atmospheric CO 2 inversion? “Update” source/sink estimates based upon regressing residuals against upstream sources and sinks

10. Inversion Portion Easiest way to think of the inversion is as afancy regression of the tower CO 2 residuals on the upstream flux regions Regression, geostatistical regression, KalmanFilters, EnKF, MLEF,…. At the end of the day…. data appears to bethe limiting factor for all of these models

11. CarbonTracker Inversion Model, Net Terrestrial Annual Flux (gC/m2/yr) 2002 (Drought) 2004 (Non-Drought) CarbonTracker (inter-annual variability)

12. Contributing Inversions Contributor StructureTransportPriorResolutionNotes NOAA (CarbonTracker) EnKFTM5CASAEcoregionNested Global, possibly higher resolution MCI nest CSU1 (Ravi L.)EnKFPCTMSiB36° by 10°Global CSU2 (A. Schuh)KFRAMSSiB3100km/10km *Regional w/ boundary conditions provided by NOAA CT and/or CSU PCTM UofMichigan (Michalak) Geostat. Inv.WRF?NA? Leftover questions: Fossil? (Vulcan, Andres, etc?), fire fluxes ?

13. Inversion Results Protocol? Follow Regional-Continental Level Protocol developed by Jacobsen/Post? Contribute asCF-compliant netcdf file, etc. Supplement NEE data w/ information onpriors (if relevant) and covariance estimates

14. Outline of a particular inversion Forward Model Run (Prior estimates of GPP/Re/NEE and Transport) Lagrangian Particle Model (Footprints) Inversion Results My CSU inversion Ensemble of MCI Inversions Inversion Results Form Meta-inversion via combination of all inversions Compare individual inversions to MCI inventory

15. Some Initial Results from Forward Model Forward SiB3/RAMS coupled run Comparison of simulated CO 2 to observed CO 2

16. Some Initial Results from Forward Model Forward SiB3/RAMS coupled run Comparison of simulated CO 2 to observed CO 2

20. Conclusions Anomalies are likely a result of the coupling between RAMS and SiB3 and are not necessarily evident in either independently Transport (particles) can still be calculated and post- hoc SiB3 fluxes “attached” as meta-data in order to run inversions. Any forward runs of optimized fluxes would be affected by this anomalous behavior and thus these would need to be corrected to form optimized wall-to- wall CO 2 fields.

21. Some Initial Results from Forward Model Forward SiB3/RAMS coupled run Comparison of simulated CO 2 to observed CO 2

22. Some Initial Results from Forward Model Forward SiB3/RAMS coupled run Comparison of simulated CO 2 to observed CO 2 … using day time minimum comparison for now

23. CO 2 Network

25. Conclusions on northern sites…. Seasonal cycle (amplitude) of biosphere fluxes are likely too strong in SiB3 Seasonal amplitude in residuals appears to be function of latitude (more northern implies larger amplitude) as well as longitude (eastern site vs. western site).

27. Conclusions on MCI sites…. Caveat: irrigation was not handled in this particular forward run, water stress will be artificially reduced in crop locations to compensate for the fact that most crops do no experience extreme water stress. Seasonal cycle (amplitude) of biosphere fluxes may be too strong in SiB3Crop and/or issues with vertical transport, PBL height, etc. Seasonal cycle in residuals at LEF and WBI are very weak implying that large seasonal cycle in residuals over MCI is likely a local effect

29. Conclusions on “the rest”…. CO 2 at Colorado sites (Niwot and BAO) appear to be captured well by model potentially indicating an inflection point in amplitude of seasonal residuals with latitude TX tower (WKT) residuals indicate that southern boundary inflow might be biased high Relatively weak seasonal cycle in residuals in Texas, AZ, OR, and CO indicate the residuals are likely an effect of local fluxes and stress due to unrealistic water stress in irrigated crops in the more arid portions of the Midwest.

30. Left to do……. Run nested simulation at 10km for MCI (has been tested and is ready to run). Run particles (LPDM) for available towers for 2007 Test out potential new “bells and whistles” for inversion including adaptive inflation scheme, different decompositions of inversion correction factors and figure out nesting of the continental and MCI inversion regions. Hope to have initial inversion results by end of summer 2009 (for use by Cooley/Breidt) and have uncertainty better characterized by AGU 2009. Driving data and spinup results are “in the can” for 2003- 2008 awaiting time and disk space.