Ozonesonde climatology between 1995 and 2009: description, evaluation and applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. An ozone climatology based on ozone soundings for the last 15 years has been constructed for model evaluation and comparisons to other observations. Vertical ozone profiles for 41 stations around the globe have been compiled and averaged for the years 1980–1994 and 1995–2009. The climatology provides information about the median and the width of the ozone probability distribution function, as well as interannual variability of ozone between 1995 and 2009, in pressure and tropopause-referenced altitudes. In addition to single stations, regional aggregates are presented, combining stations with similar ozone characteristics. The Hellinger distance is introduced as a new diagnostic to compare the variability of ozone distributions within each region and used for model evaluation purposes. This measure compares not only the mean, but also the shape of distributions. The representativeness of regional aggregates is discussed using independent observations from surface stations and MOZAIC aircraft data. Ozone from all of these data sets show an excellent agreement within the range of the interannual variability, especially if a sufficient number of measurements are available, as is the case for West Europe. Within the climatology, a significant longitudinal variability of ozone in the troposphere and lower stratosphere in the northern mid- and high latitudes is found. The climatology is used to evaluate results from two model intercomparison activities, HTAP for the troposphere and CCMVal2 for the tropopause region and the stratosphere. HTAP ozone is in good agreement with observations in the troposphere within their range of uncertainty, but ozone peaks too early in the Northern Hemisphere spring. The strong gradients of ozone around the tropopause are less well captured by many models. Lower stratospheric ozone is overestimated for all regions by the multi-model mean of CCMVal2 models. Individual models also show major shortcomings in reproducing the shape of ozone probability distribution functions in various regions and different altitudes, which might have significant implications for the radiative budgets in those 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".