Tropical lands play an important role in the global carbon cycle yet their contribution remains uncertain owing to sparse observations. Satellite observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) have greatly increased spatial coverage over tropical regions, providing the potential for improved estimates of terrestrial fluxes. Despite this advancement, the spread among satellite-based and in-situ atmospheric CO2 flux inversions over northern tropical Africa (NTA), spanning 0-24◦N, remains large. Satellite-based estimates of an annual source of 0.8-1.45 PgC yr−1 challenge our understanding of tropical and global carbon cycling. Here, we compare posterior mole fractions from the suite of inversions participating in the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) Version 10 Model Intercomparison Project (v10 MIP) with independent in-situ airborne observations made over the tropical Atlantic Ocean by the NASA Atmospheric Tomography (ATom) mission during four seasons. We develop emergent constraints on tropical African CO2 fluxes using flux-concentration relationships defined by the model suite. We find an annual flux of 0.14 ± 0.39 PgC yr−1 (mean and standard deviation) for NTA, 2016-2018. The satellite-based flux bias suggests a potential positive concentration bias in OCO-2 B10 and earlier version retrievals over land in NTA during the dry season. Nevertheless, the OCO-2 observations provide improved flux estimates relative to the in situ observing network at other times of year, indicating stronger uptake in NTA during the wet season than the in-situ inversion estimates.

To check the accuracy of column-average dry air CO2 mole fractions (“XCO2”) retrieved from Orbiting Carbon Overvatory (OCO-2) data, a similar quantity has been measured from the Multi-functional Fiber Laser Lidar (MFLL) aboard aircraft flying underneath OCO-2 as part of the Atmospheric Carbon and Transport (ACT)-America flight campaigns. Here we do a lagged correlation analysis of these MFLL-OCO-2 column CO2 differences and find that their correlation spectrum falls off rapidly at along-track separation distances of under 10 km, with a correlation length scale of about 10 km, and less rapidly at longer separation distances, with a correlation length scale of about 20 km. The OCO-2 satellite takes many CO2 measurements with small (∼3 km^2) fields of view (FOVs) in a thin (~10 km wide) swath running parallel to its orbit: up to 24 separate FOVs may be obtained per second (across a ∼6.75 km distance on the ground), though clouds, aerosols, and other factors cause considerable data dropout. Errors in the CO2 retrieval method have long been thought to be correlated at these fine scales, and methods to account for these when assimilating these data into 10 top-down atmospheric CO2 flux inversions have been developed. A common approach has been to average the data at coarser scales (e.g., in 10-second-long bins) along-track, then assign an uncertainty to the averaged value that accounts for the error correlations. Here we outline the methods used up to now for computing these 10-second averages and their uncertainties, including the constant-correlation-with-distance error model currently being used to summarize the OCO-2 version 9 XCO2 retrievals as part of the OCO-2 flux inversion model intercomparison project. We then derive a new one-dimensional error model using correlations that decay exponentially with separation distance, apply this model to the OCO-2 data using the correlation length scales derived from the MFLL-OCO-2 differences, and compare the results (for both the average and its uncertainty) to those given by the current constant-correlation error model. To implement this new model, the data are averaged first across 2-second spans, to collapse the cross-track distribution of the real data onto the 1-D path assumed by the new model. A small percentage of the data that cause non-physical negative averaging weights in the model are thrown out. The correlation lengths over the ocean, which the land-based MFLL data do not clarify, are assumed to be twice those over the land. The new correlation model gives 10-second XCO2 averages that are only a few tenths of a ppm different from the constant-correlation model. […] Finally, we show how our 1-D exponential error correlation model may be used to account for correlations in those inversion methods that choose to assimilate each XCO2 retrieval individually, and to account for correlations between separate 10-second averages when these are assimilated instead.