Five years of variability in the global carbon cycle: comparing an estimate from the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 and process-based models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Year-to-year variability in CO 2 fluxes can yield insight into climate-carbon cycle relationships, a fundamental yet uncertain aspect of the terrestrial carbon cycle. In this study, we use global observations from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite for years 2015–2019 and a geostatistical inverse model to evaluate 5 years of interannual variability (IAV) in CO 2 fluxes and its relationships with environmental drivers. OCO-2 launched in late 2014, and we specifically evaluate IAV during the time period when OCO-2 observations are available. We then compare inferences from OCO-2 with state-of-the-art process-based models (terrestrial biosphere model, TBMs). Results from OCO-2 suggest that the tropical grasslands biome (including grasslands, savanna, and agricultural lands within the tropics) makes contributions to global IAV during the 5 year study period that are comparable to tropical forests, a result that differs from a majority of TBMs. Furthermore, existing studies disagree on the environmental variables that drive IAV during this time period, and the analysis using OCO-2 suggests that both temperature and precipitation make comparable contributions. TBMs, by contrast, tend to estimate larger IAV during this time and usually estimate larger relative contributions from the extra-tropics. With that said, TBMs show little consensus on both the magnitude and the contributions of different regions to IAV. We further find that TBMs show a wide range of responses on the relationships of CO 2 fluxes with annual anomalies in temperature and precipitation, and these relationships across most of the TBMs have a larger magnitude than inferred from OCO-2. Overall, the findings of this study highlight large uncertainties in process-based estimates of IAV during recent years and provide an avenue for evaluating these processes against inferences from OCO-2.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".