the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A global dataset of high-resolution CO2 enhancements derived from OCO-3 measurements
Abstract. We present a novel global dataset of CO2 enhancements (ΔXCO2) derived by fusing NASA’s OCO-3 satellite and NOAA ground-based observations. CO2 enhancements quantify the spatially resolved excess in atmospheric CO2 concentrations arising from anthropogenic emissions, biospheric CO2 exchanges, and atmospheric CO2 transport. Leveraging decades of monthly CO2 measurements from eight remote stations strictly selected from NOAA ESRL network, such as the Mauna Loa station, we address the critical challenge of isolating localized CO2 signals from background concentrations by developing a latitude-dependent global CO2 baseline model that effectively captures spatial and seasonal variability in background CO2. The developed baseline model demonstrates near-perfect hemispheric predictive accuracy (Northern: R2=0.988, RMSE=1.78 ppm; Southern: R2=0.995, RMSE=1.09 ppm). Spatially explicit ΔXCO2 is then estimated by removing the column-corrected background CO2 from co-located OCO-3 observations. Validations of the estimated ΔXCO2 against tropospheric NO2 (R2=0.896) and prior in-situ urban CO2 measurements, along with the dataset's high spatiotemporal resolution (~ 3 km2), demonstrates its potential for tracking anthropogenic and biospheric CO2 dynamics. Global ΔXCO2 maps reveal mean CO2 enhancements of 0.58 ± 1.81 ppm, with urban areas exhibiting 1.5-fold higher enhancements (1.43 ± 2.04 ppm). North Hemisphere land areas exhibits an approximately 81 % higher ΔXCO2 average (0.67 ± 1.98 ppm) compared to the South Hemisphere (0.37 ± 1.32 ppm), with urban enhancements amplifying this hemispheric contrast up to 95 %. Comprising 54 million observations across more than 200 countries, this open-access dataset provides an alternative metric for monitoring complex atmospheric CO2 variability and actionable insights for regional climate policies, available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15209825.
- Preprint
(7497 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2025-234', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Sep 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2025-234', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Oct 2025
This manuscript attempts to establish the relationship between global CO2 background concentrations and latitude as well as month, using observations from global CO2 background stations. Based on this relationship, the authors derive global XCO2 background concentrations (XCO2b) and subsequently calculate CO2 concentration enhancements by combining OCO-3 observations. However, both the methodology and the results presented in this study may have significant problems.
- In deriving the global background concentration, the manuscript only considers the influence of latitude and month, while completely ignoring the effect of altitude on XCO2 background levels. According to the CarbonTracker results, CO2 fluxes over the Tibetan Plateau are nearly zero. Why does Fig. 5 show positive CO2 enhancements in this region? Moreover, what causes such substantial spatial discrepancies between Figs. 5 and 6?
- The method used to convert surface CO2 concentrations into XCO2 column concentrations is not clearly described. The manuscript mentions a “linear calibration function” between ground-based CO2 observations and OCO-3 XCO2 data at station locations. However, such a linear relationship can only approximate the average kernel characteristics near the observation sites. Whether this relationship remains valid in regions without in situ observations requires further validation.
- Using the XCO2b calculation formula provided in the manuscript, I computed the 2022 CO2 enhancements and their linear correlation with TROPOMI-NO2. The correlation coefficient (R) is only about 0.3 at the native OCO-3 scale and about 0.7 at a 2° resolution, which differs substantially from the results shown in Fig. 4a. Moreover, Fig. 4a presents multiple boxplots rather than a scatterplot, yet the criteria for defining the bins and the spacing between them along the x-axis are not clearly explained, which may lead to a significant overestimation of the reported correlation.
- The manuscript lacks comparison with existing studies (Hakkarainen et al., 2016; Park et al., 2021). How does the proposed method differ from or improve upon existing approaches for calculating CO2 concentration enhancements? The advantages of this method over established techniques should be clearly demonstrated.
Hakkarainen, J., Ialongo, I., Tamminen, J., 2016. Direct space‐based observations of anthropogenic CO2 emission areas from OCO‐2. Geophysical Research Letters. 43. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016gl070885.
Park, H., Jeong, S., Park, H., Labzovskii, L. D., Bowman, K. W., 2021. An assessment of emission characteristics of Northern Hemisphere cities using spaceborne observations of CO2, CO, and NO2. Remote Sensing of Environment. 254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112246.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-234-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on essd-2025-234', Anonymous Referee #3, 13 Oct 2025
The manuscript presents a global dataset of CO2 enhancements (ΔCO2) derived from the fusion of OCO-3 satellite observations and NOAA ground-based measurements. While the study addresses an important topic, I have significant concerns regarding the conceptual soundness and scientific robustness of the approach, which in my view limit the reliability and overall contribution of the work.
-
Conceptual and Methodological Concerns
The definition of CO2 enhancements lacks a rigorous and commonly accepted basis. In the current methodology, ΔXCO2 strongly depends on the selection of background CO2 concentrations from eight NOAA stations. However, CO2 background levels exhibit substantial spatial variability across different latitudes, regions, and urban environments. This spatial heterogeneity fundamentally challenges the validity of using a limited number of global background sites to represent baseline CO2 concentrations. The authors should have provided a detailed uncertainty assessment and sensitivity analysis to justify this assumption. Without such analysis, the reliability of the derived dataset remains questionable. Furthermore, the comparison with previous studies (Section 4.1.2) is limited to a few city-level averages; a comprehensive global spatial comparison is missing, which weakens the validation of the dataset. -
Scientific Significance and Applicability
The presented ΔXCO2 metric does not directly correspond to CO2 sources or sinks, thus its scientific interpretability and practical usefulness are limited. For regional or ground-based studies, much finer-scale and locally constrained approaches are typically required. Given the conceptual ambiguity and methodological uncertainty, the claimed global applicability of this dataset appears overstated. The manuscript does not adequately acknowledge these limitations, which substantially undermines the significance and reliability of the conclusions.
In summary, although the study attempts to construct a novel global CO2 enhancement dataset, the conceptual framework and methodological assumptions are insufficiently justified, and the scientific contribution remains unclear. I therefore cannot recommend the manuscript for publication in its current form.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2025-234-RC3 -
Data sets
GloCE v1.0: Global CO2 Enhancement Dataset 2019-2023 P. Fan et al. https://zenodo.org/records/15209825
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,329 | 183 | 34 | 1,546 | 30 | 42 |
- HTML: 1,329
- PDF: 183
- XML: 34
- Total: 1,546
- BibTeX: 30
- EndNote: 42
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
My full review is given in the attached PDF.