Quantifying Errors in Observationally Based Estimates of Ocean Carbon Sink Variability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reducing uncertainty in the global carbon budget requires better quantification of ocean CO 2 uptake and its temporal variability. Several methodologies for reconstructing air‐sea CO 2 exchange from pCO 2 observations indicate larger decadal variability than estimated using ocean models. We develop a new application of multiple Large Ensemble Earth system models to assess these reconstructions' ability to estimate spatiotemporal variability. With our Large Ensemble Testbed, pCO 2 fields from 25 ensemble members each of four independent Earth system models are subsampled as the observations and the reconstruction is performed as it would be with real‐world observations. The power of a testbed is that the perfect reconstruction is known for each of the original model fields; thus, reconstruction skill can be comprehensively assessed. We find that a neural‐network approach can skillfully reconstruct air‐sea CO 2 fluxes when it is trained with sufficient data. Flux bias is low for the global mean and Northern Hemisphere, but can be regionally high in the Southern Hemisphere. The phase and amplitude of the seasonal cycle are accurately reconstructed outside of the tropics, but longer‐term variations are reconstructed with only moderate skill. For Southern Ocean decadal variability, insufficient sampling leads to a 31% (15%:58%, interquartile range) overestimation of amplitude, and phasing is only moderately correlated with known truth ( r = 0.54 [0.46:0.63]). Globally, the amplitude of decadal variability is overestimated by 21% (3%:34%). Machine learning, when supplied with sufficient data, can skillfully reconstruct ocean properties. However, data sparsity remains a fundamental limitation to quantification of decadal variability in the ocean carbon sink.
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 | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".