Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 795

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

GSWP-2: Multimodel Analysis and Implications for Our Perception of the Land Surface

Dirmeyer, Paul A., Gao, Xiang, Zhao, Mei, Guo, Zhichang, Oki, Taikan, Hanasaki, Naota·2006·Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society

Abstract

Quantification of sources and sinks of carbon at global and regional scales requires not only a good description of the land sources and sinks of carbon, but also of the synoptic and mesoscale meteorology. An experiment was performed in Les Landes, southwest France, during May–June 2005, to determine the variability in concentration gradients and fluxes of CO2 The CarboEurope Regional Experiment Strategy (CERES; see also http://carboregional.mediasfrance.org/index) aimed to produce aggregated estimates of the carbon balance of a region that can be meaningfully compared to those obtained from the smallest downscaled information of atmospheric measurements and continental-scale inversions. We deployed several aircraft to sample the CO2 concentration and fluxes over the whole area, while fixed stations observed the fluxes and concentrations at high accuracy. Several (mesoscale) meteorological modeling tools were used to plan the experiment and flight patterns. Results show that at regional scale the relation between profiles and fluxes is not obvious, and is strongly influenced by airmass history and mesoscale flow patterns. In particular, we show from an analysis of data for a single day that taking either the concentration at several locations as representative of local fluxes or taking the flux measurements at those sites as representative of larger regions would lead to incorrect conclusions about the distribution of sources and sinks of carbon. Joint consideration of the synoptic and regional flow, fluxes, and land surface is required for a correct interpretation. This calls for an experimental and modeling strategy that takes into account the large spatial gradients in concentrations and the variability in sources and sinks that arise from different land use types. We briefly describe how such an analysis can be performed and evaluate the usefulness of the data for planning of future networks or longer campaigns with reduced experimental efforts.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1175/bams-87-10-1381

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 795

Metadata

Authors
Dirmeyer, P. A., Gao, X., Zhao, M., Guo, Z., Oki, T., & Hanasaki, N.
Venue
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Published
2006-10-01
Volume
87
Issue
10
Pages
1381-1398
ISSN
  • 0003-0007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-0477
OpenAlex
W2114004961
Cited by
795
References
0
FWCI
25.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: GSWP-2: Multimodel Analysis and Implications for Our Perception of the Land Surface. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1175/bams-87-10-1381
The paper
Dirmeyer, P. A., Gao, X., Zhao, M., Guo, Z., Oki, T., & Hanasaki, N. (2006). GSWP-2: Multimodel Analysis and Implications for Our Perception of the Land Surface. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. https://doi.org/10.1175/bams-87-10-1381

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.