Comparison of nitric oxide measurements in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere from ACE-FTS, MIPAS, SCIAMACHY, and SMR
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We compare the nitric oxide measurements in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere (60 to 150 km) from four instruments: the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment–Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS), the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS), the SCanning Imaging Absorption spectroMeter for Atmospheric CHartographY (SCIAMACHY), and the Sub-Millimetre Radiometer (SMR). We use the daily zonal mean data in that altitude range for the years 2004–2010 (ACE-FTS), 2005–2012 (MIPAS), 2008–2012 (SCIAMACHY), and 2003–2012 (SMR). We first compare the data qualitatively with respect to the morphology, focussing on the major features, and then compare the time series directly and quantitatively. In three geographical regions, we compare the vertical density profiles on coincident measurement days. Since none of the instruments delivers continuous daily measurements in this altitude region, we carried out a multi-linear regression analysis. This regression analysis considers annual and semi-annual variability in the form of harmonic terms and inter-annual variability by responding linearly to the solar Lyman-α radiation index and the geomagnetic Kp index. This analysis helps to find similarities and differences in the individual data sets with respect to the inter-annual variations caused by geomagnetic and solar variability. We find that the data sets are consistent and that they only disagree on minor aspects. SMR and ACE-FTS deliver the longest time series in the mesosphere, and they agree with each other remarkably well. The shorter time series from MIPAS and SCIAMACHY also agree with them where they overlap. The data agree within 30 % when the number densities are large, but they can differ by 50 to 100 % in some cases.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".