Carbon Sinks

DISCLAIMER — Real Corrections, Combined Honestly + a Speculative Bridge

Status: Real, verified data (two 2025/2026 correction papers + GCB 2025) + SPECULATIVE UTAC bridge (this package's own)

This module implements two clearly separated things:

• Real, independently checked scientific content: the Global Carbon
• Budget 2025 report's 2024 totals, and two real, independent correction
• papers — one revising the ocean sink UP (~15%, Nature Communications
• 2025), one revising the land sink DOWN (~20%, O'Sullivan et al. 2026).
• sink_revision.py combines both into a net figure rather than reporting
• either alone.
• A SPECULATIVE UTAC/CREP bridge (utac_bridge.py): this package's
• own extension, mapping a "sink-efficiency deficit" onto a UTAC steepness
• beta via the same k / driver convention used elsewhere in the
• ecosystem. **This mapping is not part of either cited paper or of the
• Global Carbon Budget** — it is an untested, falsifiable framework
• choice, and unlike amoc-utac/amazon-utac, there is no established
• bistable tipping-point threshold for "carbon sink collapse" to anchor it
• to.

What this is

• A correct, citation-checked (2026-08-01) combination of two real,
• independent, opposite-direction corrections to natural carbon sink
• estimates
• A specific, honest finding: crediting the real ocean-sink upgrade does
• NOT flip the net picture positive — the land-sink correction is larger
• in magnitude, so the net revision is still a reduction in estimated
• natural sink capacity, just a smaller one than the land correction alone
• would suggest
• A source of a falsifiable, but unvalidated, sink-stress beta metric

What this is NOT

• A claim that either correction paper endorses a "carbon sink collapse"
• frami

…

carbon-sinks-utac

[](https://github.com/GenesisAeon) [](https://github.com/GenesisAeon/carbon-sinks-utac/actions/workflows/ci.yml) [](https://www.python.org) [](LICENSE) [](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21760164)

GenesisAeon Package 59 — combines two real, independent 2025/2026 corrections to global natural carbon sink capacity, plus a SPECULATIVE UTAC/CREP sink-stress bridge (this package's own, not established science — see DISCLAIMER.md).

For a plain-language explanation of the same topic (German, no jargon, written for general audiences), see WHITEPAPER.md.

What's real here

• Global Carbon Budget 2025 (ESSD 18, 3211, 2026): 2024 totals — 11.6 GtC/yr
• anthropogenic emissions, 3.4 GtC/yr ocean sink, 1.9 GtC/yr land sink, 7.9 GtC/yr
• atmospheric growth (with the GCB's own disclosed ~1.6 GtC/yr budget imbalance).
• Ocean sink correction (2025, real, upward): "Asymmetric bubble-mediated gas
• transfer enhances global ocean CO2 uptake", Nature Communications 16, 10595
• (2025) — Plymouth Marine Laboratory & GEOMAR. Finds ocean CO2 uptake ~15%
• higher (average 1991-2020) than conventional estimates once bubble-transfer
• asymmetry is accounted for.
• Land sink correction (2026, real, downward): O'Sullivan, M. et al., "An
• improved approach to estimate the natural land carbon sink", npj Climate and
• Atmospheric Science 9, 29 (2026). Finds the 2015-2024 decadal land sink is
• ~20% smaller than previously estimated (3.00 → 2.42 PgC/yr), because older
• models assumed fixed pre-industrial land cover.

Why both corrections, not just one

A package reporting only the negative land-sink correction would itself be an unbalanced, overly pessimistic picture — exactly the kind of "compounding crisis" overstatement this ecosystem's citation-accuracy discipline exists to catch. sink_revision.py computes the net effect of both real corrections together. The honest finding: crediting the real ocean-sink upgrade does not flip the overall picture positive — the land-sink correction is larger, so the net revision to estimated natural sink capacity is still a reduction, just a smaller one than looking at the land correction alone would suggest.

What's SPECULATIVE

utac_bridge.py maps a "sink-efficiency deficit" (how far current sink efficiency sits below a reference value) onto a UTAC steepness beta, using the same K / driver convention used elsewhere in the ecosystem. Unlike amoc-utac or amazon-utac, there is no established bistable tipping-point threshold for "carbon sink collapse" in the cited literature — this bridge is this package's own untested framework choice, not a re-derivation of a validated result.

Quickstart

bash pip install carbon-sinks-utac

```python f

…