Articles | Volume 23, issue 4
Research article
02 Mar 2023
Research article |  | 02 Mar 2023

Why do inverse models disagree? A case study with two European CO2 inversions

Saqr Munassar, Guillaume Monteil, Marko Scholze, Ute Karstens, Christian Rödenbeck, Frank-Thomas Koch, Kai U. Totsche, and Christoph Gerbig

Data sets

JenaCarboScopeRegional and LUMIA inversion results for 2018 Munassar, S. and Monteil, G.

Drought-2018 atmospheric CO2 Mole Fraction product for 48 stations (96 sample heights) Drought 2018 Team and ICOS Atmosphere Thematic Centre

Short summary
Using different transport models results in large errors in optimized fluxes in the atmospheric inversions. Boundary conditions and inversion system configurations lead to a smaller but non-negligible impact. The findings highlight the importance to validate transport models for further developments but also to properly account for such errors in inverse modelling. This will help narrow the convergence of gas estimates reported in the scientific literature from different inversion frameworks.
Final-revised paper