Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics
ACP
Articles | Volume 25, issue 14
Articles | Volume 25, issue 14
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7863-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-25-7863-2025
© Author(s) 2025. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 25, issue 14
Research article
 | 
24 Jul 2025
Research article |  | 24 Jul 2025

Limitations in the use of atmospheric CO2 observations to directly infer changes in the length of the biospheric carbon uptake period

Theertha Kariyathan, Ana Bastos, Markus Reichstein, Wouter Peters, and Julia Marshall

Viewed

Total article views: 925 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
644 165 116 925 39 46
  • HTML: 644
  • PDF: 165
  • XML: 116
  • Total: 925
  • BibTeX: 39
  • EndNote: 46
Views and downloads (calculated since 05 Jul 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 05 Jul 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 925 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 910 with geography defined and 15 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 26 Jul 2025
Download
Short summary
The carbon uptake period (CUP) is the time period when land absorbs more CO2 than it emits. While atmospheric CO2 mole fraction measurements can be used to assess CUP changes, atmospheric transport and asynchronous timing across regions reduce the accuracy of the estimates. Forward model experiments show that only ~ 50 % of prescribed shifts in CUP timing applied to surface fluxes (ΔCUPNEE) are captured in simulated CO2 mole fraction data at monitoring sites like the Barrow Atmospheric Baseline Observatory.
Read more
Share
Altmetrics
Final-revised paper
Preprint