MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4242363525 · doi:10.5194/acp-2019-677

Carbon dioxide emissions in Northern China based on atmosphericobservations from 2005 to 2009

2019· preprint· en· W4242363525 on OpenAlexaff
Archana Dayalu, J. William Munger, Yuxuan Wang, Steven C. Wofsy, Yu Zhao, Thomas Nehrkorn, Chris Nielsen, Michael B. McElroy, Rachel Chang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersHarvard Global Institute
KeywordsBeijingEnvironmental scienceChinaGreenhouse gasClimatologyCarbon dioxideMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. China has pledged reduction of carbon dioxide emissions per unit GDP by 60–65 % relative to 2005 levels, and to peak carbon emissions overall by 2030. However, disagreement among available inventories makes it difficult for China to track progress toward these goals and evaluate the efficacy of control measures. In this study, we demonstrate an approach based on a long time series of surface CO2 observations to evaluate regional CO2 emissions rates in northern China estimated by three anthropogenic CO2 inventories – two of which are subsets from global inventories, and one of which is China-specific. Comparison of CO2 observations to CO2 predicted from accounting for global background concentration and atmospheric mixing of emissions suggests potential biases in the inventories. The period analyzed focuses on the key commitment period for the Paris accords (2005) and the Beijing Olympics (2008). Model-observation mismatch in concentration units is translated to mass units and is displayed against the original inventories in the measurement influence region, largely corresponding to northern China. Owing to limitations from having a single site, addressing the significant uncertainty stemming from transport error and error in spatial allocation of the emissions remains a challenge. Our analysis uses observations to support and justify increased use and development of China-specific inventories in tracking China's progress as a whole towards reducing emissions. Here we are restricted to a single measurement site; effectively evaluating and constraining inventories at relevant spatial scales requires multiple stations of high-temporal resolution observations. At this stage and with observational data limitations, we emphasize that this work is intended to be a comparison of a subset of anthropogenic CO2 emissions rates from inventories that were readily available at the time this research began. For this study's analysis time period, there was not enough spatially distinct observational data to conduct an optimization of the inventories. Rather, our analysis provides an important quantification of model-observation mismatch. In the northern China evaluation region, emission rates from the China-specific inventory produce the lowest model-observation mismatch at all timescales from daily to annual. Additionally, we note that averaged over the study time period, the unscaled China-specific inventory has substantially larger annual emissions for China as a whole (20 % higher) and the northern China evaluation region (30 %) than the unscaled global inventories. Our results lend support the rates and geographic distribution in the China-specific inventory. However, exploring this discrepancy for China as a whole requires a denser observational network in future efforts to measure and verify CO2 emissions for China both regionally and nationally. This study provides a baseline analysis for a small but import region within China, as well a guide for determining optimal locations for future ground-based measurement sites.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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