Articles | Volume 23, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-2813-2023
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-23-2813-2023
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

Viewed

Total article views: 2,658 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
1,987 617 54 2,658 139 43 45
  • HTML: 1,987
  • PDF: 617
  • XML: 54
  • Total: 2,658
  • Supplement: 139
  • BibTeX: 43
  • EndNote: 45
Views and downloads (calculated since 01 Aug 2022)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 01 Aug 2022)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 2,658 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 2,603 with geography defined and 55 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 

Cited

Latest update: 22 Jun 2024
Download
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.
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint