MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533261859 · doi:10.5194/acp-17-4781-2017

Consistent regional fluxes of CH <sub>4</sub> and CO <sub>2</sub> inferred from GOSAT proxy XCH <sub>4</sub>  : XCO <sub>2</sub> retrievals, 2010–2014

2017· article· en· W2533261859 on OpenAlexafffund
Liang Feng, Paul I. Palmer, Hartmut Bösch, Robert J. Parker, Alex Webb, Caio Correia, Nicholas M. Deutscher, Lucas G. Domingues, Dietrich G. Feist, Luciana V. Gatti, Emanuel Gloor, Frank Hase, Rigel Kivi, Yi Liu, J. B. Miller, Isamu Morino, Ralf Sussmann, Kimberly Strong, Osamu Uchino, Jing Wang, Andreas Zahn

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEurostarsCanadian Space AgencyNational Centre for Earth ObservationNatural Environment Research CouncilFundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São PauloUniversity of EdinburghUniversity of LeicesterSight Research UKEuropean Space AgencyCalifornia Institute of TechnologyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesData assimilationInversion (geology)Representative Concentration PathwaysMethaneChemistryClimatologyMeteorologyStructural basinClimate modelClimate changePhysicsGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We use the GEOS-Chem global 3-D model of atmospheric chemistry and transport and an ensemble Kalman filter to simultaneously infer regional fluxes of methane (CH4) and carbon dioxide (CO2) directly from GOSAT retrievals of XCH4 : XCO2, using sparse ground-based CH4 and CO2 mole fraction data to anchor the ratio. This work builds on the previously reported theory that takes into account that (1) these ratios are less prone to systematic error than either the full-physics data products or the proxy CH4 data products; and (2) the resulting CH4 and CO2 fluxes are self-consistent. We show that a posteriori fluxes inferred from the GOSAT data generally outperform the fluxes inferred only from in situ data, as expected. GOSAT CH4 and CO2 fluxes are consistent with global growth rates for CO2 and CH4 reported by NOAA and have a range of independent data including new profile measurements (0–7 km) over the Amazon Basin that were collected specifically to help validate GOSAT over this geographical region. We find that large-scale multi-year annual a posteriori CO2 fluxes inferred from GOSAT data are similar to those inferred from the in situ surface data but with smaller uncertainties, particularly over the tropics. GOSAT data are consistent with smaller peak-to-peak seasonal amplitudes of CO2 than either the a priori or in situ inversion, particularly over the tropics and the southern extratropics. Over the northern extratropics, GOSAT data show larger uptake than the a priori but less than the in situ inversion, resulting in small net emissions over the year. We also find evidence that the carbon balance of tropical South America was perturbed following the droughts of 2010 and 2012 with net annual fluxes not returning to an approximate annual balance until 2013. In contrast, GOSAT data significantly changed the a priori spatial distribution of CH4 emission with a 40 % increase over tropical South America and tropical Asia and a smaller decrease over Eurasia and temperate South America. We find no evidence from GOSAT that tropical South American CH4 fluxes were dramatically affected by the two large-scale Amazon droughts. However, we find that GOSAT data are consistent with double seasonal peaks in Amazonian fluxes that are reproduced over the 5 years we studied: a small peak from January to April and a larger peak from June to October, which are likely due to superimposed emissions from different geographical regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations92
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207