MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108153555 · doi:10.5194/acp-9-3547-2009

The zonal structure of tropical O <sub>3</sub> and CO as observed by the Tropospheric Emission Spectrometer in November 2004 – Part 1: Inverse modeling of CO emissions

2009· article· en· W2108153555 on OpenAlexafffund
Dylan B. A. Jones, K. W. Bowman, Jennifer A. Logan, Colette L. Heald, Jane Liu, Ming Luo, John R. Worden, J. R. Drummond

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHarvard UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceTroposphereBiomass burningTropicsClimatologyEmission inventoryMeteorologyAir quality indexAerosolGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We conduct an inverse modeling analysis of measurements of atmospheric CO from the TES and MOPITT satellite instruments using the GEOS-Chem global chemical transport model to quantify emissions of CO in the tropics in November 2004. We also assess the consistency of the information provided by TES and MOPITT on surface emissions of CO. We focus on the tropics in November 2004, during the biomass burning season, because TES observations of CO and O3 and MOPITT observations of CO reveal significantly greater abundances of these gases than simulated by the GEOS-Chem model during that period. We find that both datasets suggest substantially greater emissions of CO from sub-equatorial Africa and the Indonesian/Australian region than in the climatological emissions in the model. The a posteriori emissions from sub-equatorial Africa based on TES and MOPITT data were 173 Tg CO/yr and 184 Tg CO/yr, respectively, compared to the a priori of 95 Tg CO/yr. In the Indonesian/Australian region, the a posteriori emissions inferred from TES and MOPITT data were 155 Tg CO/yr and 185 Tg CO/yr, respectively, whereas the a priori was 69 Tg CO/yr. The differences between the a posteriori emission estimates obtained from the two datasets are generally less than 20%. The a posteriori emissions significantly improve the simulated distribution of CO, however, large regional residuals remain, and are likely due to systematic errors in the analysis. Reducing these residuals and improving the accuracy of top-down emission estimates will require better characterization of systematic errors in the observations and the model (chemistry and transport).

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.649
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations70
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207