An intercomparison of inverse models for estimating sources and sinks of CO<sub>2</sub> using GOSAT measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study presents the outcome of an inverse modeling intercomparison experiment on the use of total column CO2 retrievals from Greenhouse Gas Observing Satellite (GOSAT) for quantifying global sources and sinks of CO2. Eight research groups submitted inverse modeling results for the first year of GOSAT measurements. Inversions were carried out using only GOSAT data, a combination of GOSAT and surface measurements, and using only surface measurements. As expected, the most robust flux estimates are obtained at large scales (e.g., within 20% of the annual flux at the global scale), and they quickly diverge toward the scale of the subcontinental TRANSCOM regions and beyond (to >100% of the annual flux). We focus our analysis on a shift in the CO2 uptake over land from the Tropics toward the Northern Hemisphere Extra tropics of ∼1 PgC/yr when GOSAT data are used in the inversions. This shift is largely driven by TRANSCOM regions Europe and Northern Africa, showing, respectively, an increased uptake and release of 0.7 and 0.9 PgC/yr. Inversions using GOSAT data show a reduced gradient between midlatitudes of the Northern Hemisphere and the Tropics, consistent with the latitudinal shift in carbon uptake. However, the reduced gradients degrade the agreement with background aircraft and surface measurements. To narrow the range of inversion‐derived flux, estimates will require further efforts to understand the differences not only between the retrieval schemes but also between inverse models, as their contributions to the overall uncertainty are estimated to be of similar magnitude.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".