Next Article in Journal
Atmospheric Processes in the South Baikal Basin and Their Role in Relief Formation
Next Article in Special Issue
An Approach to Estimate Atmospheric Greenhouse Gas Total Columns Mole Fraction from Partial Column Sampling
Previous Article in Journal
Variability and Trends in Global Precipitable Water Vapor Retrieved from COSMIC Radio Occultation and Radiosonde Observations
Article Menu
Issue 5 (May) cover image

Export Article

Open AccessArticle
Atmosphere 2018, 9(5), 175;

Global Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Simulated by GEOS-Chem: Comparison with GOSAT, Carbon Tracker and Ground-Based Measurements

National Satellite Meteorological Center, China Meteorological Administration (NSMC/CMA), Beijing 100081, China
State Key Laboratory of Remote Sensing Science, Institute of Remote Sensing and Digital Earth, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China
Chinese Academy for Environmental planning, Beijing 100012, China
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Received: 23 February 2018 / Revised: 26 April 2018 / Accepted: 4 May 2018 / Published: 7 May 2018
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Greenhouse Gases: Measurements and Analysis)
Full-Text   |   PDF [32418 KB, uploaded 7 May 2018]   |  


Accurate quantification of the distribution and variability of atmospheric CO2 is crucial for a better understanding of global carbon cycle characteristics and climate change. Model simulation and observations are only two ways to globally estimate CO2 concentrations and fluxes. However, large uncertainties still exist. Therefore, quantifying the differences between model and observations is rather helpful for reducing their uncertainties and further improving model estimations of global CO2 sources and sinks. In this paper, the GEOS-Chem model was selected to simulate CO2 concentration and then compared with the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT) observations, CarbonTracker (CT) and the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) measurements during 2009–2011 for quantitatively evaluating the uncertainties of CO2 simulation. The results revealed that the CO2 simulated from GEOS-Chem is in good agreement with other CO2 data sources, but some discrepancies exist including: (1) compared with GOSAT retrievals, modeled XCO2 from GEOS-Chem is somewhat overestimated, with 0.78 ppm on average; (2) compared with CT, the simulated XCO2 from GEOS-Chem is slightly underestimated at most regions, although their time series and correlation show pretty good consistency; (3) compared with the TCCON sites, modeled XCO2 is also underestimated within 1 ppm at most sites, except at Garmisch, Karlsruhe, Sodankylä and Ny-Ålesund. Overall, the results demonstrate that the modeled XCO2 is underestimated on average, however, obviously overestimated XCO2 from GEOS-Chem were found at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere in summer. These results are helpful for understanding the model uncertainties as well as to further improve the CO2 estimation. View Full-Text
Keywords: GEOS-Chem model; GOSAT satellite; CarbonTracker; XCO2 GEOS-Chem model; GOSAT satellite; CarbonTracker; XCO2

Figure 1

This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited (CC BY 4.0).

Share & Cite This Article

MDPI and ACS Style

Jing, Y.; Wang, T.; Zhang, P.; Chen, L.; Xu, N.; Ma, Y. Global Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations Simulated by GEOS-Chem: Comparison with GOSAT, Carbon Tracker and Ground-Based Measurements. Atmosphere 2018, 9, 175.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats

Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Related Articles

Article Metrics

Article Access Statistics



[Return to top]
Atmosphere EISSN 2073-4433 Published by MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland RSS E-Mail Table of Contents Alert
Back to Top