MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4285730065 · doi:10.5194/acp-22-9215-2022

Estimated regional CO <sub>2</sub> flux and uncertainty based on an ensemble of atmospheric CO <sub>2</sub> inversions

2022· article· en· W4285730065 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Naveen Chandra, Prabir K. Patra, Yousuke Niwa, Akihiko Ito, Yosuke Iida, Daisuke Goto, Shinji Morimoto, Masayuki Kondo, Masayuki Takigawa, Tomohiro Hajima, Michio Watanabe

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, San DiegoNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationEnvironmental Restoration and Conservation AgencyMinisterio de Educación, Cultura y DeporteMinistry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and TechnologyCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceInversion (geology)Sink (geography)Flux (metallurgy)Carbon cycleCarbon sinkAtmospheric sciencesCarbon fluxBiosphereClimatologyMeteorologyClimate changeGeologyGeographyChemistryOceanographyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global and regional sources and sinks of carbon across the earth's surface have been studied extensively using atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) observations and atmospheric chemistry-transport model (ACTM) simulations (top-down/inversion method). However, the uncertainties in the regional flux distributions remain unconstrained due to the lack of high-quality measurements, uncertainties in model simulations, and representation of data and flux errors in the inversion systems. Here, we assess the representation of data and flux errors using a suite of 16 inversion cases derived from a single transport model (MIROC4-ACTM) but different sets of a priori (bottom-up) terrestrial biosphere and oceanic fluxes, as well as prior flux and observational data uncertainties (50 sites) to estimate CO 2 fluxes for 84 regions over the period 2000–2020. The inversion ensembles provide a mean flux field that is consistent with the global CO 2 growth rate, land and ocean sink partitioning of −2.9 ± 0.3 (± 1 σ uncertainty on the ensemble mean) and −1.6 ± 0.2 PgC yr −1 , respectively, for the period 2011–2020 (without riverine export correction), offsetting about 22 %–33 % and 16 %–18 % of global fossil fuel CO 2 emissions. The rivers carry about 0.6 PgC yr −1 of land sink into the deep ocean, and thus the effective land and ocean partitioning is −2.3 ± 0.3 and −2.2 ± 0.3, respectively. Aggregated fluxes for 15 land regions compare reasonably well with the best estimations for the 2000s (∼ 2000–2009), given by the REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes (RECCAP), and all regions appeared as a carbon sink over 2011–2020. Interannual variability and seasonal cycle in CO 2 fluxes are more consistently derived for two distinct prior fluxes when a greater degree of freedom (increased prior flux uncertainty) is given to the inversion system. We have further evaluated the inversion fluxes using meridional CO 2 distributions from independent (not used in the inversions) aircraft and surface measurements, suggesting that the ensemble mean flux (model–observation mean ± 1 σ standard deviation = −0.3 ± 3 ppm) is best suited for global and regional CO 2 flux budgets than an individual inversion (model–observation 1 σ standard deviation = −0.35 ± 3.3 ppm). Using the ensemble mean fluxes and uncertainties for 15 land and 11 ocean regions at 5-year intervals, we show promise in the capability to track flux changes toward supporting the ongoing and future CO 2 emission mitigation policies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations75
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207