Download Data |
Period Mean (original grids) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Bias [kg m-2] |
Bias Score [1] |
Spatial Distribution Score [1] |
Overall Score [1] |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benchmark | [-] | 30.1 | ||||||||||
CESM2_1 | [-] | 487. | 16.4 | 470. | 29.9 | 0.195 | -1.17 | 0.538 | 0.679 | 0.609 | ||
CRUJRA | [-] | 626. | 29.3 | 597. | 29.9 | 0.195 | 0.327 | 0.605 | 0.837 | 0.721 | ||
GSWP3 | [-] | 491. | 22.4 | 468. | 29.9 | 0.195 | -0.472 | 0.574 | 0.772 | 0.673 | ||
PRINCETON | [-] | 714. | 35.9 | 678. | 29.9 | 0.195 | 1.05 | 0.624 | 0.845 | 0.735 |
Download Data |
Period Mean (original grids) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Bias [kg m-2] |
Bias Score [1] |
Spatial Distribution Score [1] |
Overall Score [1] |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benchmark | [-] | 1.44 | ||||||||||
CESM2_1 | [-] | 10.0 | 4.41 | 5.87 | 1.41 | 0.0279 | 2.74 | 0.350 | 0.574 | 0.462 | ||
CRUJRA | [-] | 16.4 | 6.21 | 10.1 | 1.41 | 0.0279 | 4.48 | 0.202 | 0.428 | 0.315 | ||
GSWP3 | [-] | 14.9 | 6.04 | 8.72 | 1.41 | 0.0279 | 4.24 | 0.200 | 0.465 | 0.333 | ||
PRINCETON | [-] | 22.3 | 7.89 | 14.4 | 1.41 | 0.0279 | 5.90 | 0.131 | 0.239 | 0.185 |
Download Data |
Period Mean (original grids) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Bias [kg m-2] |
Bias Score [1] |
Spatial Distribution Score [1] |
Overall Score [1] |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benchmark | [-] | 0.00649 | ||||||||||
CESM2_1 | [-] | 9.84 | 0.0204 | 9.59 | 0.00649 | 0.164 | 0.488 | 0.577 | 0.532 | |||
CRUJRA | [-] | 12.4 | 0.0314 | 12.1 | 0.00649 | 0.346 | 0.598 | 0.779 | 0.688 | |||
GSWP3 | [-] | 10.2 | 0.0247 | 9.96 | 0.00649 | 0.231 | 0.589 | 0.761 | 0.675 | |||
PRINCETON | [-] | 13.7 | 0.0259 | 13.4 | 0.00649 | 0.253 | 0.586 | 0.761 | 0.673 |
Download Data |
Period Mean (original grids) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Bias [kg m-2] |
Bias Score [1] |
Spatial Distribution Score [1] |
Overall Score [1] |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benchmark | [-] | 17.4 | ||||||||||
CESM2_1 | [-] | 9.53 | 9.25 | 0.198 | 17.3 | 0.0180 | -1.66 | 0.605 | 0.845 | 0.725 | ||
CRUJRA | [-] | 18.0 | 17.6 | 0.300 | 17.3 | 0.0180 | 0.471 | 0.703 | 0.930 | 0.816 | ||
GSWP3 | [-] | 11.9 | 11.6 | 0.244 | 17.3 | 0.0180 | -1.07 | 0.648 | 0.854 | 0.751 | ||
PRINCETON | [-] | 19.2 | 18.7 | 0.319 | 17.3 | 0.0180 | 0.762 | 0.695 | 0.925 | 0.810 |
Download Data |
Period Mean (original grids) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Bias [kg m-2] |
Bias Score [1] |
Spatial Distribution Score [1] |
Overall Score [1] |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benchmark | [-] | 1.52 | ||||||||||
CESM2_1 | [-] | 35.2 | 1.15 | 33.8 | 1.46 | 0.0621 | 0.725 | 0.636 | 0.826 | 0.731 | ||
CRUJRA | [-] | 53.4 | 2.12 | 51.3 | 1.46 | 0.0621 | 5.19 | 0.612 | 0.905 | 0.759 | ||
GSWP3 | [-] | 44.5 | 1.76 | 42.9 | 1.46 | 0.0621 | 3.57 | 0.645 | 0.899 | 0.772 | ||
PRINCETON | [-] | 67.0 | 2.48 | 64.6 | 1.46 | 0.0621 | 6.90 | 0.586 | 0.902 | 0.744 |
Download Data |
Period Mean (original grids) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Model Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (intersection) [Pg] |
Benchmark Period Mean (complement) [Pg] |
Bias [kg m-2] |
Bias Score [1] |
Spatial Distribution Score [1] |
Overall Score [1] |
|||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Benchmark | [-] | 9.78 | ||||||||||
CESM2_1 | [-] | 1.65 | 1.56 | 0.118 | 9.71 | 0.0683 | -2.12 | 0.429 | 0.208 | 0.318 | ||
CRUJRA | [-] | 3.44 | 3.31 | 0.178 | 9.71 | 0.0683 | -1.61 | 0.488 | 0.532 | 0.510 | ||
GSWP3 | [-] | 3.12 | 3.01 | 0.149 | 9.71 | 0.0683 | -1.71 | 0.483 | 0.415 | 0.449 | ||
PRINCETON | [-] | 6.93 | 6.74 | 0.219 | 9.71 | 0.0683 | -0.669 | 0.574 | 0.785 | 0.679 |
Approach: To convert the original data at 250m to the final one at 0.5x0.5 degree resolution, Please see conversion steps listed in http://redwood.ess.uci.edu/mingquan/www/ILAMB/Download/CODES/CODES/subroutines/convert/readme_biomass. 3 codes below will be used in these steps. Code 1: http://redwood.ess.uci.edu/mingquan/www/ILAMB/Download/CODES/CODES/subroutines/convert/read-US.Forest.pro Code 2: http://redwood.ess.uci.edu/mingquan/www/ILAMB/Download/CODES/CODES/subroutines/convert/convert-US.Forest.ncl Code 3: http://redwood.ess.uci.edu/mingquan/www/ILAMB/Download/CODES/CODES/subroutines/convert/write-US.Forest.ncl First, I used Code 1 to read data at 250m from the original geotiff file; then I used Code 2 to convert unit from the orignal unit of ton C per hectare to the final one of Kg C per m2, meanwhile I summed all available data points at 250m in each 0.5x0.5 grid cell to obtain the data at 0.5x0.5 degree resolution; finally I used Code 3 to create the final file in netCDF format.
Temporal resolution: yearly
General information: This product was derived from Forest Biomass across the Lower 48 States and Alaska originally in a raster format at 250m.
Spatial resolution: 0.5x0.5 degree
Derived data code: http://redwood.ess.uci.edu/mingquan/www/ILAMB/Download/CODES/CODES/subroutines/convert/read-US.Forest.pro http://redwood.ess.uci.edu/mingquan/www/ILAMB/Download/CODES/CODES/subroutines/convert/convert-US.Forest.ncl http://redwood.ess.uci.edu/mingquan/www/ILAMB/Download/CODES/CODES/subroutines/convert/write-US.Forest.ncl