Search arXiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2608.11821

Auditing the Global Carbon Budget: Exploring the 2024--2025 Vintage Shift

Mikkel Bennedsen·Eric Hillebrand·Siem Jan Koopman
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The Global Carbon Budget (GCB), the community reference dataset for the carbon cycle, is reissued annually. The 2025 release introduces several adjustments to the published series that we compare with prior releases starting in 2017. On a common 1959-2016 sample, the mean of the GCB budget imbalance jumps from within +/-0.17 GtC/yr of zero for every vintage 2017-2024 to 0.61 GtC/yr in 2025, the only vintage whose 95% confidence interval for the imbalance mean excludes zero. The size of the imbalance changes much less: its mean absolute value rises from 0.61 to 0.76 GtC/yr. It is the mean, the quantity the budget identity constrains, that moves. We document and explore this shift in two ways. First, we conduct a model-free analysis, where we attribute the shift to a new adjustment that places the published land sink 0.40 GtC/yr below its ensemble mean (the average of the underlying models), a smaller adjustment in the ocean sink in the opposite direction, and a change in the composition of the bookkeeping ensemble. Second, we consider a dynamic statistical GCB model augmented with climate covariates. Its parameters are estimated for every GCB vintage 2017-2025. The coefficients of atmospheric concentrations in the sink equations shift in opposite directions on the 2025 issue, mirroring the model-free findings. A constant in the budget equation, statistically unnecessary in every vintage from 2017-2024, is required in 2025 and is estimated at -0.59 (0.09) GtC/yr. There is a persistent drifting imbalance across the entire sample in the budget equation. Each of the three adjustments is documented in the 2025 release and rests on evidence about the component it corrects. Their joint effect is a budget that closes over the last ten years and carries a mean imbalance of 0.61 GtC/yr over the full record. We argue that this cost to the full sample outweighs the gain on the last ten years.

Explore related subjects

stat.AP

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Mikkel Bennedsen, Eric Hillebrand, Siem Jan Koopman. 2026-09-14. Auditing the Global Carbon Budget: Exploring the 2024--2025 Vintage Shift. https://arxiv.org/abs/2608.11821

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Auditing Bayesian Graph Alignment: Diagnostic Comparisons and Reference Failure

Bayesian graph alignment estimates correspondence probabilities, but convergence of an alignment-score trace need not imply accurate correspondence marginals. We audit this gap on 240 new exact graph pairs from four source families, 240 larger pairs with 20-100 vertices, and a separate 60-case exact implementation check. Under an explicit edge-flip likelihood, we compare three samplers and score, marginal, indicator, categorical, and classifier-based diagnostics. Marginal disagreement improves error discrimination over score R-hat for the exact informed sampler, but its improvement for vanilla local sampling is uncertain. Assignment-based R* and short indicator panels are competitive; no diagnostic dominates across samplers and endpoints. At larger sizes, diagnostics predict subsequent marginal changes, not posterior error, and classification performance depends on the drift threshold. Disjoint-window and held-out-chain checks attenuate but preserve positive associations. Only 22 of 240 original reference sets pass an agreement screen. On forty failure-selected cases, eightfold SMC particle escalation does not resolve disagreement, whereas additional rejuvenation helps. Longer informed runs remain unstable. An elementary feasible-alignment bound demonstrates severely unrepresentative SMC and informed-chain scores in concentrated 100-vertex cases, independently of approximate reference consensus. We also exhibit common-start chains with near-zero disagreement despite exact marginal error near .967. These results support assignment-sensitive auditing while identifying limits of finite budgets, diagnostic rankings, and reference agreement as evidence of accuracy.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

GeoDose-CP: Graph-Local Conformal Inference for Continuous-Treatment Earth Observation

Reliable intervention-oriented uncertainty quantification from Earth observation (EO) remains challenging when continuous treatment shifts, spatial dependence, limited support, and satellite-outcome uncertainty must be addressed simultaneously. Existing causal, conformal, and spatial approaches address parts of this problem, but their direct combination does not generally recover the appropriate interventional reference law because candidate reassignment jointly alters treatment likelihood, standardized residuals, and graph-dependent residual likelihood. This study presents GeoDose-CP, a support-aware conformal framework for localized stochastic potential outcomes under continuous or mixed continuous-atomic treatment. Its central methodological contribution is a graph-local target-orbit law that jointly represents intervention-induced treatment shift, the inverse outcome-scale Jacobian, and spatial residual dependence. The framework further provides exact weighted candidate inversion, a scalable sparse approximation with explicit discrepancy accounting, and refusal under inadequate support. Evaluation used controlled known-truth experiments, MineDoseBench, treatment-density sensitivity analysis, external conformal comparators, and a multi-mine New South Wales (NSW) study. In MineDoseBench, GeoDose-CP achieved mean selective coverage of 0.9692 across 27 configurations and a minimum local q0.05 of 0.8951; exact-sparse auditing produced nine inclusion disagreements over 2,700 targets. In the NSW study, the absence of an auditable longitudinal rehabilitation treatment rendered treatment-dependent inference nonoperational rather than forcing inference through a proxy exposure.

stat.AP↗
arXiv2026

Interpreting relative utility for probabilistic predictions

At a fixed threshold, relative utility (RU) measures the net-benefit gain of a prediction model over the better of treat-all and treat-none relative to the corresponding gain under perfect outcome classification. We illustrate that RU equal to 1 therefore represents perfect outcome classification at that fixed threshold, not perfect probabilistic prediction. However, even when every predicted probability equals the true probability, observed RU can equal 0. In a simple constant-risk setting, this occurs with probability approaching 1 as the sample size increases. Consequently, the distance from observed RU to 1 should not in general be interpreted as improvement achievable by a better prediction for binary probabilities.

stat.AP↗