Validation of GOSAT and OCO-2 against In Situ Aircraft Measurements and Comparison with CarbonTracker and GEOS-Chem over Qinhuangdao, China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important greenhouse gas and several satellites have been launched to monitor the atmospheric CO2 at regional and global scales. Evaluation of the measurements obtained from these satellites against accurate and precise instruments is crucial. In this work, aircraft measurements of CO2 were carried out over Qinhuangdao, China (39.9354°N, 119.6005°E), on 14, 16, and 19 March 2019 to validate the Greenhous gases Observing SATellite (GOSAT) and the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) CO2 retrievals. The airborne in situ instruments were mounted on a research aircraft and the measurements were carried out between the altitudes of ~0.5 and 8.0 km to obtain the vertical profiles of CO2. The profiles captured a decrease in CO2 concentration from the surface to maximum altitude. Moreover, the vertical profiles from GEOS-Chem and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) CarbonTracker were also compared with in situ and satellite datasets. The satellite and the model datasets captured the vertical structure of CO2 when compared with in situ measurements, which showed good agreement among the datasets. The dry-air column-averaged CO2 mole fractions (XCO2) retrieved from OCO-2 and GOSAT showed biases of 1.33 ppm (0.32%) and −1.70 ppm (−0.41%), respectively, relative to the XCO2 derived from in situ measurements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".