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


Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on acp-2022-510', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Aug 2022
  • RC2: 'Comment on acp-2022-510', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Sep 2022
  • AC1: 'ACs on RC 1 and RC2', Saqr Munassar, 21 Nov 2022

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision
AR by Saqr Munassar on behalf of the Authors (21 Nov 2022)  Author's response    Author's tracked changes    Manuscript
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (30 Dec 2022) by Susannah Burrows
RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (12 Jan 2023)
RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (21 Jan 2023)
ED: Publish as is (08 Feb 2023) by Susannah Burrows
AR by Saqr Munassar on behalf of the Authors (10 Feb 2023)  Author's response    Manuscript
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