the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
State-wide California 2020 Carbon Dioxide Budget Estimated with OCO-2 and OCO-3 satellite data
Abstract. Satellite observations are instrumental in observing spatiotemporal variability in carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations which can be used to derive fluxes of this greenhouse gas. This study leverages NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 and -3 (OCO-2/3) CO2 observations with a Gaussian Process (GP) machine learning inverse model, a Bayesian non-parametric approach well-suited for integrating the unique spatiotemporal characteristics of these satellite observations, to estimate sub-regional CO2 fluxes. Utilizing the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model (CTM) which simulates column-average CO2 concentrations (XCO2) for 2020 in California – a period marked by the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and significant wildfire activity – we estimated state-wide CO2 emission rates constrained by OCO-2/3. This study developed prior fossil fuel emissions to reflect reduced activities during the COVID-19 pandemic, while net ecosystem exchange (NEE) and fire emissions were derived based on satellite data. GEOS-Chem source-specific XCO2 concentrations for fossil fuels, NEE, fire, and oceanic sources were simulated coincident to OCO-2/3 XCO2 retrievals to estimate statewide sector-specific and total CO2 emissions. GP inverse model results suggest annual posterior median fossil fuel emissions were consistent with prior estimates (317.8 and 338.4±46.4 Tg CO2 yr-1, respectively) and that posterior NEE fluxes had less carbon uptake compared to prior fluxes (-36.8±32.8 vs. -99.2 Tg CO2 yr-1, respectively). Posterior fire CO2 emissions were estimated to be 68.0±50.6 Tg CO2 yr-1 which was much lower compared to a priori estimates (103.3 Tg CO2 yr-1). The total median annual CO2 emissions for the state of California in 2020 were estimated to be 349.6 Tg CO2 yr-1 (range of 272.8 – 428.6 Tg CO2 yr-1; 95 % confidence level), aligning closely with the prior total estimate of 342.5 Tg CO2 yr-1. This study, for the first time, demonstrates that OCO-2/3 XCO2 observations can be assimilated into inverse models to estimate state-wide, source-specific CO2 fluxes on a seasonal- and annual-scale.
- Preprint
(1078 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(854 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2152', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Nov 2024
The study by Johnson et al. applies a novel inversion technique, i.e., the Gaussian Process machine learning method to infer state-wide, source-specific CO2 fluxes using OCO-2/3 XCO2 data, illustrating that OCO-2/3 XCO2 can be assimilated into inverse models to estimate sub-regional and source-specific CO2 fluxes on a seasonal- and annual-scale. In general, this is a nice study that extended our knowledge on employing new artificial intelligence-based inverse modeling methods to infer CO2 fluxes from atmospheric observations. I have a feeling, the current content looks a bit “thin”, some advantages of the new method have not been clearly illustrated. Also, some detailed analyses should be added to make the presented results more sound. I would like to recommend it for publication after addressing the following issues.
Major comments:
- The current results do not clearly illustrate the advantages of the GP/ML inverse method. Comparing the new method with old ones should help.
- The presentation of results:
- Figure 2, I expect to see a time-series plot (if it can not be made for pixel scale, for regional scale also work), which can better show the performance of model optimization for prior/posterior and observations. Histogram plots for prior/posterior residuals (simulations minus observations) would also help.
- Figure S1 showing the spatial distribution of the posterior fluxes in the supplemental files can be moved to the main text.
- I expect to see the seasonal cycle (with a monthly time-step) of the prior/posterior CO2 fluxes, for fossil fuels, fires, and NEE. These would help to see if the constrained fluxes can indicate the impact of COVID-19, wildfires, and seasonal anthropogenic emissions. Currently, we only see the results by season.
3. Is it possible to perform one-year more inversion? So then we can better understand the performance of the inversion model in revealing the impact of disturbance from COVID-19, wildfires, and droughts.
4. In Section 2.1, I see the boundary conditions were taken from GEOS-chem 4D-Var run at 4° ×5°, it is relatively coarse compared to the resolution of 0.5° ×0.625° for the inversion. I am not sure if this leads to some uncertainties for the inversion. Some higher-resolution BC, e.g., from CarbonTracker, might be better for the current inversion. Or some tests about the sensitivity of BC can be added.
Minor comments:
- Line 169, constraining-> constrain?
- Section 2.3, I expect to see a spatial map showing the data coverage of OCO-2 and OCO-3 XCO2 observations over the study area.
- How to optimally determine the hyperparameters of the GP/ML model? It is not clear.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2152-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2152', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 Mar 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-2152/egusphere-2024-2152-RC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
345 | 104 | 20 | 469 | 32 | 25 | 21 |
- HTML: 345
- PDF: 104
- XML: 20
- Total: 469
- Supplement: 32
- BibTeX: 25
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1