Two decades of permafrost region CO2, CH4, and N2O budgets suggest a small net greenhouse gas source to the atmosphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long-term net sink of carbon (C), nitrogen (N) and greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the northern permafrost region is projected to weaken or shift under climate change. But large uncertainties remain, even on present-day GHG budgets. We compare bottom-up (data-driven upscaling, process-based models) and top-down budgets (atmospheric inversion models) of the main GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) and lateral fluxes of C and N across the region over 2000-2020. Bottom-up approaches estimate higher land to atmosphere fluxes for all GHGs compared to top-down atmospheric inversions. Both bottom-up and top-down approaches respectively show a net sink of CO2 in natural ecosystems (-31 (-667, 559) and -587 (-862, -312), respectively) but sources of CH4 (38 (23, 53) and 15 (11, 18) Tg CH4-C yr-1) and N2O (0.6 (0.03, 1.2) and 0.09 (-0.19, 0.37) Tg N2O-N yr-1) in natural ecosystems. Assuming equal weight to bottom-up and top-down budgets and including anthropogenic emissions, the combined GHG budget is a source of 147 (-492, 759) Tg CO2-Ceq yr-1 (GWP100). A net CO2 sink in boreal forests and wetlands is offset by CO2 emissions from inland waters and CH4 emissions from wetlands and inland waters, with a smaller additional warming from N2O emissions. Priorities for future research include representation of inland waters in process-based models and compilation of process-model ensembles for CH4 and N2O. Discrepancies between bottom-up and top-down methods call for analyses of how prior flux ensembles impact inversion budgets, more in-situ flux observations and improved resolution in upscaling.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".