Neutral Tropical African CO <sub>2</sub> Exchange Estimated From Aircraft and Satellite Observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Tropical lands play an important role in the global carbon cycle yet their contribution remains uncertain owing to sparse observations. Satellite observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) have greatly increased spatial coverage over tropical regions, providing the potential for improved estimates of terrestrial fluxes. Despite this advancement, the spread among satellite‐based and in‐situ atmospheric CO 2 flux inversions over northern tropical Africa (NTA), spanning 0–24°N, remains large. Satellite‐based estimates of an annual source of 0.8–1.45 PgC yr −1 challenge our understanding of tropical and global carbon cycling. Here, we compare posterior mole fractions from the suite of inversions participating in the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO‐2) Version 10 Model Intercomparison Project (v10 MIP) with independent in‐situ airborne observations made over the tropical Atlantic Ocean by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Atmospheric Tomography (ATom) mission during four seasons. We develop emergent constraints on tropical African CO 2 fluxes using flux‐concentration relationships defined by the model suite. We find an annual flux of 0.14 ± 0.39 PgC yr −1 (mean and standard deviation) for NTA, 2016–2018. The satellite‐based flux bias suggests a potential positive concentration bias in OCO‐2 B10 and earlier version retrievals over land in NTA during the dry season. Nevertheless, the OCO‐2 observations provide improved flux estimates relative to the in situ observing network at other times of year, indicating stronger uptake in NTA during the wet season than the in‐situ inversion estimates.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".