MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401543826 · doi:10.1029/2023av001145

Toward Low‐Latency Estimation of Atmospheric CO <sub>2</sub> Growth Rates Using Satellite Observations: Evaluating Sampling Errors of Satellite and In Situ Observing Approaches

2024· article· en· W4401543826 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAGU Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCalifornia Institute of TechnologyJet Propulsion LaboratoryNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSatelliteEnvironmental scienceSampling (signal processing)Growth rateAtmosphere (unit)MeteorologyRemote sensingBenchmark (surveying)Mean squared errorAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyComputer scienceStatisticsMathematicsGeodesyGeographyGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The atmospheric CO 2 growth rate is a fundamental measure of climate forcing. NOAA's growth rate estimates, derived from in situ observations at the marine boundary layer (MBL), serve as the benchmark in policy and science. However, NOAA's MBL‐based method encounters challenges in accurately estimating the whole‐atmosphere CO 2 growth rate at sub‐annual scales. Here we introduce the Growth Rate from Satellite Observations (GRESO) method as a complementary approach to estimate the whole‐atmosphere CO 2 growth rate utilizing satellite data. Satellite CO 2 observations offer extensive atmospheric coverage that extends the capability of the current NOAA benchmark. We assess the sampling errors of the GRESO and NOAA methods using 10 atmospheric transport model simulations. The simulations generate synthetic OCO‐2 satellite and NOAA MBL data for calculating CO 2 growth rates, which are compared against the global sum of carbon fluxes used as model inputs. We find good performance for the NOAA method (R = 0.93, RMSE = 0.12 ppm year −1 or 0.25 PgC year −1 ). GRESO demonstrates lower sampling errors (R = 1.00; RMSE = 0.04 ppm year −1 or 0.09 PgC year −1 ). Additionally, GRESO shows better performance at monthly scales than the NOAA method (R = 0.76 vs. 0.47, respectively). Due to CO 2 's atmospheric longevity, the NOAA method accurately captures growth rates over 5‐year intervals. GRESO's robustness across partial coverage configurations (ocean or land data) shows that satellites can be promising tools for low‐latency CO 2 growth rate information, provided the systematic biases are minimized using in situ observations. Along with accurate and calibrated NOAA in situ data, satellite‐derived growth rates can provide information about the global carbon cycle at sub‐annual scales.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.199
Threshold uncertainty score0.829

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.219 · 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