Evaluation of Uncertainties in the Anthropogenic SO<sub>2</sub> Emissions in the USA from the OMI Point Source Catalog
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Satellite remote sensing is a promising method of monitoring emissions that may be missing in inventories, but the accuracy of these estimates is often not clear. We demonstrate here a comprehensive evaluation of errors in anthropogenic sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ) emission estimates from NASA’s OMI point source catalog for the contiguous US by comparing emissions from the catalog with high-quality emission inventory data over different dimensions including size of individual sources, aggregate vs individual source errors, and potential bias in individual source estimates over time. For sources that are included in the catalog, we find that errors in aggregate (sum of error for all included sources) are relatively low. Errors for individual sources in any given year can be substantial, however, with over- or underestimates in terms of total error ranging from −80 to 110 kt (roughly 10–90th percentile). We find that these errors are not necessarily random over time and that there can be consistently positive or negative biases for individual sources. We did not find any overall statistical relationship between the degree of isolation of a source and bias, either at a 40 or 70 km scales. For a sub-set of sources where inventory emissions over a radius of 70 km around an OMI detection are larger than twice the emissions within 40 km, the OMI value is consistently overestimated. We find, as expected, that emission sources not included in the catalog are the largest aggregate source of difference between the satellite estimates and inventories, especially in more recent years where source emission magnitudes have been decreasing and note that trends in satellite detections do not necessarily track trends in total emissions. We find that the OMI-based SO 2 emissions are accurate in aggregate, when summed over a number of sources, but must be interpreted more cautiously at the individual source level. Similar analyses would be valuable for other satellite emission estimates; however, in many cases, the appropriate high-quality reference data may need to be generated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".