SPARC Data Initiative: A comparison of ozone climatologies from international satellite limb sounders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A comprehensive quality assessment of the ozone products from 18 limb‐viewing satellite instruments is provided by means of a detailed intercomparison. The ozone climatologies in form of monthly zonal mean time series covering the upper troposphere to lower mesosphere are obtained from LIMS, SAGE I/II/III, UARS‐MLS, HALOE, POAM II/III, SMR, OSIRIS, MIPAS, GOMOS, SCIAMACHY, ACE‐FTS, ACE‐MAESTRO, Aura‐MLS, HIRDLS, and SMILES within 1978–2010. The intercomparisons focus on mean biases of annual zonal mean fields, interannual variability, and seasonal cycles. Additionally, the physical consistency of the data is tested through diagnostics of the quasi‐biennial oscillation and Antarctic ozone hole. The comprehensive evaluations reveal that the uncertainty in our knowledge of the atmospheric ozone mean state is smallest in the tropical and midlatitude middle stratosphere with a 1σ multi‐instrument spread of less than ±5%. While the overall agreement among the climatological data sets is very good for large parts of the stratosphere, individual discrepancies have been identified, including unrealistic month‐to‐month fluctuations, large biases in particular atmospheric regions, or inconsistencies in the seasonal cycle. Notable differences between the data sets exist in the tropical lower stratosphere (with a spread of ±30%) and at high latitudes (±15%). In particular, large relative differences are identified in the Antarctic during the time of the ozone hole, with a spread between the monthly zonal mean fields of ±50%. The evaluations provide guidance on what data sets are the most reliable for applications such as studies of ozone variability, model‐measurement comparisons, detection of long‐term trends, and data‐merging activities.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".