MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2888307546 · doi:10.5194/acp-18-12011-2018

A comparison of posterior atmospheric CO <sub>2</sub> adjustments obtained from in situ and GOSAT constrained flux inversions

2018· article· en· W2888307546 on OpenAlexafffund
Saroja Polavarapu, Feng Deng, Brendan Byrne, Dylan B. A. Jones, Michael Neish

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEurostarsNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationCalifornia Institute of TechnologyEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversität BremenJet Propulsion LaboratoryScience and Technology DirectorateStrongUniversity of TorontoCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of WollongongNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceTroposphereAtmospheric sciencesFlux (metallurgy)Inversion (geology)BorealClimatologyMeteorologyChemistryGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Posterior fluxes obtained from inverse modelling are difficult to verify because there is no dense network of flux measurements available to evaluate estimates against. Here we present a new diagnostic to evaluate structures in posterior fluxes. First, we simulate the change in atmospheric CO2 fields between posterior and prior fluxes, referred to as the posterior atmospheric adjustments due to updated fluxes (PAAFs). Second, we calculate the uncertainty in atmospheric CO2 fields due solely to uncertainty in the meteorological fields, referred to as the posterior atmospheric adjustments due to imperfect meteorology (PAAMs). We argue that PAAF can only be considered robust if it exceeds PAAM, that is, the changes in atmospheric CO2 between the posterior and prior fluxes should at least exceed atmospheric CO2 changes arising from imperfect meteorology. This diagnostic is applied to two CO2 flux inversions: one which assimilates observations from the in situ CO2 network and the other which assimilates observations from the Greenhouse Gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT). On the global scale, PAAF in the troposphere reflects northern extratropical fluxes, whereas stratospheric adjustments primarily reflect tropical fluxes. In general, larger spatiotemporal variations in PAAF are obtained for the GOSAT inversion than for the in situ inversion. Zonal standard deviations of the PAAF exceed the PAAM through most of the year when GOSAT observations are used, but the minimum value is exceeded only in boreal summer when in situ observations are used. Zonal spatial structures in GOSAT-based PAAF exceed PAAM throughout the year in the tropics and through most of the year in the northern extratropics, suggesting GOSAT flux inversions can constrain zonal asymmetries in fluxes. However, we cannot discount the possibility that these structures are influenced by biases in GOSAT retrievals. Verification of such spatial structures will require a dense network of independent observations. Because PAAF depends on the choice of prior fluxes, the comparison with PAAM is system dependent and thus can be used to monitor a given assimilation system's behaviour.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physics→Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→