MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079261398 · doi:10.1029/2006gl026549

The tropopause inversion layer in models and analyses

2006· article· en· W2079261398 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Thomas Birner, David Sankey, T. G. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space AgencyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationScheme for Promotion of Academic and Research CollaborationCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsTropopauseRadiosondeClimatologyGCM transcription factorsGeneral Circulation ModelAtmospheric sciencesData assimilationInversion (geology)Atmospheric modelEnvironmental scienceStratification (seeds)GeologyMeteorologyStratosphereClimate changeGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent high‐resolution radiosonde climatologies have revealed a tropopause inversion layer (TIL) in the extratropics: temperature strongly increases just above a sharp local cold point tropopause. Here, it is asked to what extent a TIL exists in current general circulation models (GCMs) and meteorological analyses. Only a weak hint of a TIL exists in NCEP/NCAR reanalysis data. In contrast, the Canadian Middle Atmosphere Model (CMAM), a comprehensive GCM, exhibits a TIL of realistic strength. However, in data assimilation mode CMAM exhibits a much weaker TIL, especially in the Southern Hemisphere where only coarse satellite data are available. The discrepancy between the analyses and the GCM is thus hypothesized to be mainly due to data assimilation acting to smooth the observed strong curvature in temperature around the tropopause. This is confirmed in the reanalysis where the stratification around the tropopause exhibits a strong discontinuity at the start of the satellite era.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.074
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations99
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207