A globally integrated carbon observation and analysis system is needed to improve the fundamental understanding of the global carbon cycle, to improve our ability to project future changes, and to verify the effectiveness of policies aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon sequestration. Building an integrated carbon observation system requires transformational advances from the existing sparse, exploratory framework towards a dense, robust, and sustained system in all components: anthropogenic emissions, the atmosphere, the ocean, and the terrestrial biosphere. The paper is addressed to scientists, policymakers, and funding agencies who need to have a global picture of the current state of the (diverse) carbon observations.

We identify the current state of carbon observations, and the needs and notional requirements for a global integrated carbon observation system that can be built in the next decade. A key conclusion is the substantial expansion of the ground-based observation networks required to reach the high spatial resolution for CO₂ and CH₄ fluxes, and for carbon stocks for addressing policy-relevant objectives, and attributing flux changes to underlying processes in each region. In order to establish flux and stock diagnostics over areas such as the southern oceans, tropical forests, and the Arctic, in situ observations will have to be complemented with remote-sensing measurements. Remote sensing offers the advantage of dense spatial coverage and frequent revisit. A key challenge is to bring remote-sensing measurements to a level of long-term consistency and accuracy so that they can be efficiently combined in models to reduce uncertainties, in synergy with ground-based data.

Bringing tight observational constraints on fossil fuel and land use change emissions will be the biggest challenge for deployment of a policy-relevant integrated carbon observation system. This will require in situ and remotely sensed data at much higher resolution and density than currently achieved for natural fluxes, although over a small land area (cities, industrial sites, power plants), as well as the inclusion of fossil fuel CO₂ proxy measurements such as radiocarbon in CO₂ and carbon-fuel combustion tracers. Additionally, a policy-relevant carbon monitoring system should also provide mechanisms for reconciling regional top-down (atmosphere-based) and bottom-up (surface-based) flux estimates across the range of spatial and temporal scales relevant to mitigation policies. In addition, uncertainties for each observation data-stream should be assessed. The success of the system will rely on long-term commitments to monitoring, on improved international collaboration to fill gaps in the current observations, on sustained efforts to improve access to the different data streams and make databases interoperable, and on the calibration of each component of the system to agreed-upon international scales.

Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology Education outlined five core concepts intended to guide undergraduate biology education: 1) evolution; 2) structure and function; 3) information flow, exchange, and storage; 4) pathways and transformations of energy and matter; and 5) systems. We have taken these general recommendations and created a Vision and Change BioCore Guide—a set of general principles and specific statements that expand upon the core concepts, creating a framework that biology departments can use to align with the goals of Vision and Change. We used a grassroots approach to generate the BioCore Guide, beginning with faculty ideas as the basis for an iterative process that incorporated feedback from more than 240 biologists and biology educators at a diverse range of academic institutions throughout the United States. The final validation step in this process demonstrated strong national consensus, with more than 90% of respondents agreeing with the importance and scientific accuracy of the statements. It is our hope that the BioCore Guide will serve as an agent of change for biology departments as we move toward transforming undergraduate biology education.

Errors in the specification or utilization of fossil fuel CO₂ emissions within carbon budget or atmospheric CO₂ inverse studies can alias the estimation of biospheric and oceanic carbon exchange. A key component in the simulation of CO₂ concentrations arising from fossil fuel emissions is the spatial distribution of the emission near coastlines. Regridding of fossil fuel CO₂ emissions (FFCO₂) from fine to coarse grids to enable atmospheric transport simulations can give rise to mismatches between the emissions and simulated atmospheric dynamics which differ over land or water. For example, emissions originally emanating from the land are emitted from a grid cell for which the vertical mixing reflects the roughness and/or surface energy exchange of an ocean surface. We test this potential "dynamical inconsistency" by examining simulated global atmospheric CO₂ concentration driven by two different approaches to regridding fossil fuel CO₂ emissions. The two approaches are as follows: (1) a commonly used method that allocates emissions to grid cells with no attempt to ensure dynamical consistency with atmospheric transport and (2) an improved method that reallocates emissions to grid cells to ensure dynamically consistent results. Results show large spatial and temporal differences in the simulated CO₂ concentration when comparing these two approaches. The emissions difference ranges from −30.3 TgC grid cell^-1 yr^-1 (−3.39 kgC m^-2 yr^-1) to +30.0 TgC grid cell^-1 yr^-1 (+2.6 kgC m^-2 yr^-1) along coastal margins. Maximum simulated annual mean CO₂ concentration differences at the surface exceed ±6 ppm at various locations and times. Examination of the current CO₂ monitoring locations during the local afternoon, consistent with inversion modeling system sampling and measurement protocols, finds maximum hourly differences at 38 stations exceed ±0.10 ppm with individual station differences exceeding −32 ppm. The differences implied by not accounting for this dynamical consistency problem are largest at monitoring sites proximal to large coastal urban areas and point sources. These results suggest that studies comparing simulated to observed atmospheric CO₂ concentration, such as atmospheric CO₂ inversions, must take measures to correct for this potential problem and ensure flux and dynamical consistency.

The U.S. scientific research community does not reflect America's diversity. Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans made up 31% of the general population in 2010, but they represented only 18 and 7% of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) bachelor's and doctoral degrees, respectively, and 6% of STEM faculty members (National Science Foundation [NSF], 2013). Equity in the scientific research community is important for a variety of reasons; a diverse community of researchers can minimize the negative influence of bias in scientific reasoning, because people from different backgrounds approach a problem from different perspectives and can raise awareness regarding biases (Intemann, 2009). Additionally, by failing to be attentive to equity, we may exclude some of the best and brightest scientific minds and limit the pool of possible scientists (Intemann, 2009). Given this need for equity, how can our scientific research community become more inclusive?

Women who start college in one of the natural or physical sciences leave in greater proportions than their male peers. The reasons for this difference are complex, and one possible contributing factor is the social environment women experience in the classroom. Using social network analysis, we explore how gender influences the confidence that college-level biology students have in each other’s mastery of biology. Results reveal that males are more likely than females to be named by peers as being knowledgeable about the course content. This effect increases as the term progresses, and persists even after controlling for class performance and outspokenness. The bias in nominations is specifically due to males over-nominating their male peers relative to their performance. The over-nomination of male peers is commensurate with an overestimation of male grades by 0.57 points on a 4 point grade scale, indicating a strong male bias among males when assessing their classmates. Females, in contrast, nominated equitably based on student performance rather than gender, suggesting they lacked gender biases in filling out these surveys. These trends persist across eleven surveys taken in three different iterations of the same Biology course. In every class, the most renowned students are always male. This favoring of males by peers could influence student self-confidence, and thus persistence in this STEM discipline.