The SPARC Data Initiative: Comparison of upper troposphere/lower stratosphere ozone climatologies from limb‐viewing instruments and the nadir‐viewing Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present the first comprehensive intercomparison of currently available satellite ozone climatologies in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphere (UTLS) (300–70 hPa) as part of the Stratosphere‐troposphere Processes and their Role in Climate (SPARC) Data Initiative. The Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer (TES) instrument is the only nadir‐viewing instrument in this initiative, as well as the only instrument with a focus on tropospheric composition. We apply the TES observational operator to ozone climatologies from the more highly vertically resolved limb‐viewing instruments. This minimizes the impact of differences in vertical resolution among the instruments and allows identification of systematic differences in the large‐scale structure and variability of UTLS ozone. We find that the climatologies from most of the limb‐viewing instruments show positive differences (ranging from 5 to 75%) with respect to TES in the tropical UTLS, and comparison to a “zonal mean” ozonesonde climatology indicates that these differences likely represent a positive bias for p ≤ 100 hPa. In the extratropics, there is good agreement among the climatologies regarding the timing and magnitude of the ozone seasonal cycle (differences in the peak‐to‐peak amplitude of <15%) when the TES observational operator is applied, as well as very consistent midlatitude interannual variability. The discrepancies in ozone temporal variability are larger in the tropics, with differences between the data sets of up to 55% in the seasonal cycle amplitude. However, the differences among the climatologies are everywhere much smaller than the range produced by current chemistry‐climate models, indicating that the multiple‐instrument ensemble is useful for quantitatively evaluating these models.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".