The North American Greenhouse Gas Budget: Emissions, Removals, and Integration for CO<sub>2</sub>, CH<sub>4</sub>, and N<sub>2</sub>O (2010–2019): Results From the Second REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes Study (RECCAP2)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate accounting of greenhouse‐gas (GHG) emissions and removals is central to tracking progress toward climate mitigation and for monitoring potential climate‐change feedbacks. GHG budgeting and reporting can follow either the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change methodologies for National Greenhouse Gas Inventory (NGHGI) reporting or use atmospheric‐based “top‐down” (TD) inversions or process‐based “bottom‐up” (BU) approaches. To help understand and reconcile these approaches, the Second REgional Carbon Cycle Assessment and Processes study (RECCAP2) was established to quantify GHG emissions and removals for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O), for ten‐land and five‐ocean regions for 2010–2019. Here, we present the results for the North American land region (Canada, the United States, Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean). For 2010–2019, the NGHGI reported total net‐GHG emissions of 7,270 TgCO 2 ‐eq yr −1 compared to TD estimates of 6,132 ± 1,846 TgCO 2 ‐eq yr −1 and BU estimates of 9,060 ± 898 TgCO 2 ‐eq yr −1 . Reconciling differences between the NGHGI, TD and BU approaches depended on (a) accounting for lateral fluxes of CO 2 along the land‐ocean‐aquatic continuum (LOAC) and trade, (b) correcting land‐use CO 2 emissions for the loss‐of‐additional‐sink capacity (LASC), (c) avoiding double counting of inland water CH 4 emissions, and (d) adjusting area estimates to match the NGHGI definition of the managed‐land proxy. Uncertainties remain from inland‐water CO 2 evasion, the conversion of nitrogen fertilizers to N 2 O, and from less‐frequent NGHGI reporting from non‐Annex‐1 countries. The RECCAP2 framework plays a key role in reconciling independent GHG‐reporting methodologies to support policy commitments while providing insights into biogeochemical processes and responses to climate change.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".