Elevated uptake of CO <sub>2</sub> over Europe inferred from GOSAT X <sub> CO <sub>2</sub> </sub> retrievals: a real phenomenon or an artefact of the analysis?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Estimates of the natural CO2 flux over Europe inferred from in situ measurements of atmospheric CO2 mole fraction have been used previously to check top-down flux estimates inferred from space-borne dry-air CO2 column (XCO2) retrievals. Recent work has shown that CO2 fluxes inferred from XCO2 data from the Japanese Greenhouse gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) have a larger seasonal amplitude and a more negative annual net CO2 balance than those inferred from the in situ data. The causes of this enhanced European CO2 uptake have since become the focus of recent studies. We show this elevated uptake over Europe could largely be explained by mis-fitting data due to regional biases. We establish a reference in situ inversion that uses an Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) to assimilate surface flask data and the XCO2 data from the surface-based Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON). The same EnKF system is also used to assimilate two, independent versions of GOSAT XCO2 data. We find that the GOSAT-inferred European terrestrial biosphere uptake peaks during the summer, similar to the reference inversion, but the net annual flux is 1.18 ± 0.1 GtC a−1 compared to a value of 0.56 ± 0.1 GtC a−1 for our control inversion that uses only in situ data. To reconcile these two estimates, we have performed a series of numerical experiments that assimilate observations with biases or assimilate synthetic observations for which part or all of the GOSAT XCO2 data are replaced with model data. We find that 50–80% of the elevated European uptake in 2010 inferred from GOSAT data is due to retrievals outside the immediate European region, while most of the remainder can be explained by a sub-ppm retrieval bias over Europe. We have used data assimilation techniques to estimate monthly GOSAT XCO2 biases from the joint assimilation of in situ observations and GOSAT XCO2 retrievals. We find a monthly varying bias of up to 0.5 ppm can explain an overestimate of the annual sink of up to 0.18 GtC a−1.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".