Global CO<sub>2</sub>fluxes inferred from surface air-sample measurements and from TCCON retrievals of the CO<sub>2</sub>total column
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present the first estimate of the global distribution of CO_2 surface fluxes from 14 stations of the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON). The evaluation of this inversion is based on 1) comparison with the fluxes from a classical inversion of surface air-sample-measurements, and 2) comparison of CO_2 mixing ratios calculated from the inverted fluxes with independent aircraft measurements made during the two years analyzed here, 2009 and 2010. The former test shows similar seasonal cycles in the northern hemisphere and consistent regional carbon budgets between inversions from the two datasets, even though the TCCON inversion appears to be less precise than the classical inversion. The latter test confirms that the TCCON inversion has improved the quality (i.e., reduced the uncertainty) of the surface fluxes compared to the assumed or prior fluxes. The consistency between the surface-air-sample-based and the TCCON-based inversions despite remaining flaws in transport models opens the possibility of increased accuracy and robustness of flux inversions based on the combination of both data sources and confirms the usefulness of space-borne monitoring of the CO_2 column.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".