Permafrost, Peatland, and Cropland Regions Are Key to Reconciling North American Carbon Sink Estimates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Persistent discrepancies between bottom‐up, terrestrial biosphere models (TBMs), and top‐down, atmospheric inversions, have made it difficult to quantify the magnitude of the North American terrestrial carbon sink. Previous studies have compared aggregated continent‐scale estimates of carbon fluxes from TBMs and inversions for all of North America, but this provides limited insights into finer‐scale mismatches that contribute to the overall discrepancies. Here we evaluate agreement between TBM and inversion carbon flux estimates at 1° × 1° resolution to provide more direct insights into where models disagree and what underlying factors drive discrepancies. We find that the additional carbon uptake estimated by inversions, in just 16% of the area of North America, is large enough to account for the discrepancy between TBMs and inversions across the whole continent. The majority of these differences occur in permafrost, peatland, and cropland regions. In these regions, we find a higher likelihood of potential biases in the weaker sink estimates from TBMs, suggesting that the stronger sink implied by inversions is more likely to be realistic. However, the current observational coverage is insufficient for fully assessing the causes of discrepancies or the magnitude of biases in either approach. Encouragingly, improved representation of agricultural processes in a TBM led to better agreement with inversions in croplands. Efforts to accurately model cropland dynamics will help improve agreement between TBMs and inversions. Overall, this work presents a clear path for reconciling the discrepancies between inversion and TBM estimates of the North American carbon sink that have persisted for two decades.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".