MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4384154750 · doi:10.1029/2022gl100366

Inter‐Annual Variability in Atmospheric Transport Complicates Estimation of US Methane Emissions Trends

2023· article· en· W4384154750 on OpenAlexaff
Leyang Feng, Sakineh Tavakkoli, Sarah M. Jordaan, A. E. Andrews, Joshua Benmergui, Darryn W. Waugh, Mingyang Zhang, Dylan C. Gaeta, Scot M. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersJohns Hopkins UniversityNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMethaneEnvironmental scienceMethane emissionsAtmospheric methaneAtmospheric sciencesSatelliteGreenhouse gasClimatologyGeologyChemistryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract US natural gas production increased by ∼43% between 2005 and 2015, but there is disagreement among existing studies on whether this growth led to increased methane emissions. We evaluate the likely contributions of atmospheric transport to an upward trend in atmospheric methane enhancements during 2007–2015, defined as the contribution of North American emissions to atmospheric observations across the US. We find that interannual variability (IAV) in transport yields an apparent upward trend in enhancements across much of the US during this time and can explain disagreements among existing studies over emissions trends. We further find that enhancements at satellite and in situ monitoring sites are 19% higher during El Niño than La Niña, possibly because air masses spend more time over North America on average during some years. The results show that accurate modeling of IAV in transport is a key prerequisite to quantifying emissions trends.

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)0.004
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 score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.089

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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