Global Carbon Budget 1800-2018 Loss of Additional Sink Capacity and Present Transient Difference
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dataset of two global carbon fluxes: the loss of additional sink capacity (LASC) and present versus transient difference (PTD). The loss of additional sink capacity is the loss of indirect anthropogenic sink capacity in land ecosystems caused by the loss of ecosystems that can increase carbon in response to changing environments, primarily forests. The present transient difference refers to the direct anthropogenic flux in land ecosystems (from land cover and land use change) and the difference in that flux when calculated assuming "present day" (actually more like 1980) ecosystem carbon stocks or when calculated assuming transient carbon stocks (i.e. caused by environmental change). In this dataset, the LASC and PTD fluxes were calculated using the TRENDY ensemble of Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs; Sitch et al., 2024) following the methods described therein and in Obermeier et al. (2021). For further details see Obermeier et al. (2021), Friedlingstein et al. (2019), Sitch et al. (2024), and Walker et al. (2025). The dataset includes ensemble means and standard deviations for annual fluxes, fluxes cumulated annually over the whole time period, and cumulated since 1959. These data were originally collected to compare different approaches (DGVMs versus bookkeeping models) for estimating land use and land cover change (LULCC) emissions (Obermeier et al. 2021). More recently, and similarly, these data were used to harmonize the estimates of the direct and indirect anthropogenic fluxes in the global carbon cycle and to recalculate the global carbon budget (Walker et al., 2025).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.014 |
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".