MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406879629

Global atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> inverse models converging on neutral tropical land exchange, but disagreeing on fossil fuel and atmospheric growth rate

2019· article· W4406879629 on OpenAlexaff
Benjamin Gaubert, Britton B. Stephens, Sourish Basu, Frédéric Chevallier, Feng Deng, E. A. Kort, Prabir K. Patra, Wouter Peters, Christian Rödenbeck, Tazu Saeki, D. Schimel, Steven C. Wofsy, Yi Yin

Bibliographic record

VenueMPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) · 2019
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceFossil fuelAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyEcologyGeologyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have compared a suite of recent global CO2 atmospheric inversion results to independent airborne observations and to each other, to assess their dependence on differences in northern extratropical vertical transport and to identify some of the drivers of model spread. We evaluate posterior CO2 concentration profiles against observations from the High-Performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research (HIAPER) Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO) aircraft campaigns over the mid Pacific in 2009–2011. Although the models differ in inverse approaches, assimilated observations, prior fluxes, and transport models, their latitudinal distributions of land fluxes have converged significantly since the Atmospheric Carbon Cycle Inversion Intercomparison (TransCom3) and the REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes (RECCAP) projects, with model spread reduced by 80% since TransCom3 and 70% since RECCAP. Most modelled CO2 fields agree reasonably well with the HIPPO observations, in particular for annual mean vertical gradients in the northern hemisphere. Northern hemisphere vertical mixing no longer appears to be a dominant driver of northern versus tropical annual flux differences. Our newer suite of models still gives modest northern extratropical land uptake and near neutral tropical land uptake for 2009–2011, thus implying a continued strong uptake in intact tropical forests given estimates of emissions from deforestation. The results from these models for other time periods (2004–2014, 2001–2004, 1992–1996), and re-evaluation of the TransCom3 Level 2 and RECCAP results confirms that tropical land carbon fluxes including deforestation have been near neutral for several decades. However, models still have large disagreements on ocean-land partitioning, and this is influenced by differences in prescribed fossil fuel emissions and is associated with differences in retrieved atmospheric growth rate. The fossil fuel and the atmospheric growth rate terms have been thought to be the best-known terms in the global carbon budget, but we show that they dominate the model spread at the largest scales and currently limit our ability to assess regional scale terrestrial fluxes and ocean-land partitioning from the model ensemble.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society)Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207