Consistent assimilation of multiple data streams in a carbon cycle data assimilation system

Abstract. Data assimilation methods provide a rigorous statistical framework for constraining parametric uncertainty in land surface models (LSMs), which in turn helps to improve their predictive capability and to identify areas in which the representation of physical processes is inadequate. The increase in the number of available datasets in recent years allows us to address different aspects of the model at a variety of spatial and temporal scales. However, combining data streams in a DA system is not a trivial task. In this study we highlight some of the challenges surrounding multiple data stream assimilation for the carbon cycle component of LSMs. We give particular consideration to the assumptions associated with the type of inversion algorithm that are typically used when optimising global LSMs – namely, Gaussian error distributions and linearity in the model dynamics. We explore the effect of biases and inconsistencies between the observations and the model (resulting in non-Gaussian error distributions), and we examine the difference between a simultaneous assimilation (in which all data streams are included in one optimisation) and a step-wise approach (in which each data stream is assimilated sequentially) in the presence of non-linear model dynamics. In addition, we perform a preliminary investigation into the impact of correlated errors between two data streams for two cases, both when the correlated observation errors are included in the prior observation error covariance matrix, and when the correlated errors are ignored. We demonstrate these challenges by assimilating synthetic observations into two simple models: the first a simplified version of the carbon cycle processes represented in many LSMs and the second a non-linear toy model. Finally, we provide some perspectives and advice to other land surface modellers wishing to use multiple data streams to constrain their model parameters.

[1]  A. Arneth,et al.  Global patterns of land-atmosphere fluxes of carbon dioxide, latent heat, and sensible heat derived from eddy covariance, satellite, and meteorological observations , 2011 .

[2]  B. Law,et al.  An improved analysis of forest carbon dynamics using data assimilation , 2005 .

[3]  George Kuczera,et al.  Understanding predictive uncertainty in hydrologic modeling: The challenge of identifying input and structural errors , 2010 .

[4]  Klaus Scipal,et al.  Simultaneous assimilation of SMOS soil moisture and atmospheric CO2 in-situ observations to constrain the global terrestrial carbon cycle , 2016 .

[5]  K. Thonicke,et al.  Identifying environmental controls on vegetation greenness phenology through model–data integration , 2014 .

[6]  E. Davidson,et al.  Using model‐data fusion to interpret past trends, and quantify uncertainties in future projections, of terrestrial ecosystem carbon cycling , 2012 .

[7]  N. Gobron,et al.  Simultaneous assimilation of satellite and eddy covariance data for improving terrestrial water and carbon simulations at a semi-arid woodland site in Botswana , 2012 .

[8]  Nuno Carvalhais,et al.  Constraining a land-surface model with multiple observations by application of the MPI-Carbon Cycle Data Assimilation System V1.0 , 2016 .

[9]  Nuno Carvalhais,et al.  Balancing multiple constraints in model‐data integration: Weights and the parameter block approach , 2014 .

[10]  S. Roxburgh,et al.  OptIC project: An intercomparison of optimization techniques for parameter estimation in terrestrial biogeochemical models , 2007 .

[11]  K. Davis,et al.  Hyperparameter estimation for uncertainty quantification in mesoscale carbon dioxide inversions , 2013 .

[12]  N. Nichols,et al.  Investigating the role of prior and observation error correlations in improving a model forecast of forest carbon balance using Four-dimensional Variational data assimilation , 2016 .

[13]  Erik Andersson,et al.  Influence‐matrix diagnostic of a data assimilation system , 2004 .

[14]  Philippe Peylin,et al.  Quantifying the model structural error in carbon cycle data assimilation systems , 2012 .

[15]  Frédéric Chevallier,et al.  Impact of correlated observation errors on inverted CO2 surface fluxes from OCO measurements , 2007 .

[16]  Philip Lewis,et al.  Assimilating canopy reflectance data into an ecosystem model with an Ensemble Kalman Filter , 2008 .

[17]  R. Giering,et al.  Two decades of terrestrial carbon fluxes from a carbon cycle data assimilation system (CCDAS) , 2005 .

[18]  Ranga B. Myneni,et al.  Recent trends and drivers of regional sources and sinks of carbon dioxide , 2015 .

[19]  M. Scholze.  Model studies on the response of the terrestrial carbon cycle to climate change and variability , 2003 .

[20]  Fabienne Maignan,et al.  A new stepwise carbon cycle data assimilation system using multiple data streams to constrain the simulated land surface carbon cycle , 2016 .

[21]  N. Gobron,et al.  Uncertainty Estimates for the FAPAR Operational Products Derived from MERIS - Impact of Top-of-Atmosphere Radiance Uncertainties and Validation with Field Data , 2008 .

[22]  L. White,et al.  Probabilistic inversion of a terrestrial ecosystem model: Analysis of uncertainty in parameter estimation and model prediction , 2006 .

[23]  Eric A Davidson,et al.  Rate my data: quantifying the value of ecological data for the development of models of the terrestrial carbon cycle. , 2013, Ecological applications : a publication of the Ecological Society of America.

[24]  E. Dufrene,et al.  Joint assimilation of eddy covariance flux measurements and FAPAR products over temperate forests within a process‐oriented biosphere model , 2015 .

[25]  J. Gove,et al.  The REFLEX project: Comparing different algorithms and implementations for the inversion of a terrestrial ecosystem model against eddy covariance data , 2009 .

[26]  A. Anthony Bloom,et al.  Constraining ecosystem carbon dynamics in a data-limited world: integrating ecological "common sense" in a model-data fusion framework , 2014 .

[27]  Shaun Quegan,et al.  Model–data synthesis in terrestrial carbon observation: methods, data requirements and data uncertainty specifications , 2005 .

[28]  Corinne Le Quéré,et al.  Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles , 2014 .

[29]  Ron Smith,et al.  Bayesian calibration of process-based forest models: bridging the gap between models and data. , 2005, Tree physiology.

[30]  S. Bony,et al.  Climate change projections using the IPSL-CM5 Earth System Model: from CMIP3 to CMIP5 , 2013, Climate Dynamics.

[31]  R. Monson,et al.  Joint data assimilation of satellite reflectance and net ecosystem exchange data constrains ecosystem carbon fluxes at a high-elevation subalpine forest , 2014 .

[32]  R. Giering,et al.  Consistent assimilation of MERIS FAPAR and atmospheric CO2 into a terrestrial vegetation model and interactive mission benefit analysis , 2011 .

[33]  George Kuczera,et al.  Comparison of joint versus postprocessor approaches for hydrological uncertainty estimation accounting for error autocorrelation and heteroscedasticity , 2014 .

[34]  Wolfgang Knorr,et al.  Annual and interannual CO2 exchanges of the terrestrial biosphere: process-based simulations and uncertainties , 2000 .

[35]  Tim E. Jupp,et al.  Land-surface parameter optimisation using data assimilation techniques: the adJULES system V1.0 , 2016 .

[36]  E. Davidson,et al.  Estimating parameters of a forest ecosystem C model with measurements of stocks and fluxes as joint constraints , 2010, Oecologia.

[37]  Kevin R. Gurney,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation of covariance parameters for Bayesian atmospheric trace gas surface flux inversions , 2005 .

[38]  B. Stevens,et al.  Climate and carbon cycle changes from 1850 to 2100 in MPI‐ESM simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 , 2013 .

[39]  D. Barrett,et al.  Prospects for improving savanna biophysical models by using multiple-constraints model-data assimilation methods , 2005 .

[40]  P. Cox,et al.  1 EVALUATING THE LAND AND OCEAN COMPONENTS OF THE GLOBAL 1 CARBON CYCLE IN THE CMIP 5 EARTH SYSTEM MODELS 2 3 4 , 2022 .

[41]  J. Morcrette.  Evaluation of Model-generated Cloudiness: Satellite-observed and Model-generated Diurnal Variability of Brightness Temperature , 1991 .

[42]  M. Raupach.  Dynamics of resource production and utilisation in two-component biosphere-human and terrestrial carbon systems , 2006 .

[43]  G. Kiely,et al.  Model-data fusion across ecosystems : From multisite optimizations to global simulations , 2014 .

[44]  P. Ciais,et al.  The potential benefit of using forest biomass data in addition to carbon and water flux measurements to constrain ecosystem model parameters: Case studies at two temperate forest sites , 2017 .

[45]  I. C. Prentice,et al.  A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere‐biosphere system , 2005 .

[46]  P. Alton,et al.  From site-level to global simulation: Reconciling carbon, water and energy fluxes over different spatial scales using a process-based ecophysiological land-surface model , 2013 .

[47]  W. Cohen,et al.  Evaluation of fraction of absorbed photosynthetically active radiation products for different canopy radiation transfer regimes: methodology and results using Joint Research Center products derived from SeaWiFS against ground-based estimations. , 2006 .

[48]  R. Giering,et al.  Retrieving surface parameters for climate models from Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)-Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) Albedo Products , 2007 .

[49]  Jens Kattge,et al.  Will the tropical land biosphere dominate the climate–carbon cycle feedback during the twenty-first century? , 2007 .