Global greenhouse gas reconciliation 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In this study, we provide an update on the methodology and data used by Deng et al. (2022) to compare the national greenhouse gas inventories (NGHGIs) and atmospheric inversion model ensembles contributed by international research teams coordinated by the Global Carbon Project. The comparison framework uses transparent processing of the net ecosystem exchange fluxes of carbon dioxide (CO2) from inversions to provide estimates of terrestrial carbon stock changes over managed land that can be used to evaluate NGHGIs. For methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O), we separate anthropogenic emissions from natural sources based directly on the inversion results to make them compatible with NGHGIs. Our global harmonized NGHGI database was updated with inventory data until February 2023 by compiling data from periodical United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) inventories by Annex I countries and sporadic and less detailed emissions reports by non-Annex I countries given by national communications and biennial update reports. For the inversion data, we used an ensemble of 22 global inversions produced for the most recent assessments of the global budgets of CO2, CH4, and N2O coordinated by the Global Carbon Project with ancillary data. The CO2 inversion ensemble in this study goes through 2021, building on our previous report from 1990 to 2019, and includes three new satellite inversions compared to the previous study and an improved managed-land mask. As a result, although significant differences exist between the CO2 inversion estimates, both satellite and in situ inversions over managed lands indicate that Russia and Canada had a larger land carbon sink in recent years than reported in their NGHGIs, while the NGHGIs reported a significant upward trend of carbon sink in Russia but a downward trend in Canada. For CH4 and N2O, the results of the new inversion ensembles are extended to 2020. Rapid increases in anthropogenic CH4 emissions were observed in developing countries, with varying levels of agreement between NGHGIs and inversion results, while developed countries showed a slowly declining or stable trend in emissions. Much denser sampling of atmospheric CO2 and CH4 concentrations by different satellites, coordinated into a global constellation, is expected in the coming years. The methodology proposed here to compare inversion results with NGHGIs can be applied regularly for monitoring the effectiveness of mitigation policy and progress by countries to meet the objectives of their pledges. The dataset constructed for this study is publicly available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13887128 (Deng et al., 2024).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".