Spatio-Temporal Consistency Evaluation of XCO2 Retrievals from GOSAT and OCO-2 Based on TCCON and Model Data for Joint Utilization in Carbon Cycle Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global carbon cycle research requires precise and sufficient observations of the column-averaged dry-air mole fraction of CO 2 (XCO 2 ) in addition to conventional surface mole fraction observations. In addition, assessing the consistency of multi-satellite data are crucial for joint utilization to better infer information about CO 2 sources and sinks. In this work, we evaluate the consistency of long-term XCO 2 retrievals from the Greenhouse Gases Observing Satellite (GOSAT), Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) in comparison with Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) and the 3D model of CO 2 mole fractions data from CarbonTracker 2017 (CT2017). We create a consistent joint dataset and compare it with the long-term model data to assess their abilities to characterize the carbon cycle climate. The results show that, although slight increasing differences are found between the GOSAT and TCCON XCO 2 in the northern temperate latitudes, the GOSAT and OCO-2 XCO 2 retrievals agree well in general, with a mean bias ± standard deviation of differences of 0.21 ± 1.3 ppm. The differences are almost within ±2 ppm and are independent of time, indicating that they are well calibrated. The differences between OCO-2 and CT2017 XCO 2 are much larger than those between GOSAT and CT XCO 2 , which can be attributed to the significantly different spatial representatives of OCO-2 and the CT-transport model 5 (TM5). The time series of the combined OCO-2/GOSAT dataset and the modeled XCO 2 agree well, and both can characterize significantly increasing atmospheric CO 2 under the impact of a large El Niño during 2015 and 2016. The trend calculated from the dataset using the seasonal Kendall (S-K) method indicates that atmospheric CO 2 is increasing by 2–2.6 ppm per year.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".