MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2112014702 · doi:10.5194/acp-13-7075-2013

Spatial and seasonal distribution of Arctic aerosols observed by the CALIOP satellite instrument (2006–2012)

2013· article· en· W2112014702 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Di Pierro, Lyatt Jaeglé, E. W. Eloranta, Sangeeta Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolLidarEnvironmental scienceTroposphereSatelliteArcticAtmospheric sciencesHazeExtinction (optical mineralogy)DaytimeClimatologyRemote sensingMeteorologyGeologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We use retrievals of aerosol extinction from the Cloud-Aerosol Lidar with Orthogonal Polarization (CALIOP) onboard the CALIPSO satellite to examine the vertical, horizontal and temporal variability of tropospheric Arctic aerosols during the period 2006–2012. We develop an empirical method that takes into account the difference in sensitivity between daytime and nighttime retrievals over the Arctic. Comparisons of the retrieved aerosol extinction to in situ measurements at Barrow (Alaska) and Alert (Canada) show that CALIOP reproduces the observed seasonal cycle and magnitude of surface aerosols to within 25 %. In the free troposphere, we find that daytime CALIOP retrievals will only detect the strongest aerosol haze events, as demonstrated by a comparison to aircraft measurements obtained during NASA's ARCTAS mission during April 2008. This leads to a systematic underestimate of the column aerosol optical depth by a factor of 2–10. However, when the CALIOP sensitivity threshold is applied to aircraft observations, we find that CALIOP reproduces in situ observations to within 20% and captures the vertical profile of extinction over the Alaskan Arctic. Comparisons with the ground-based high spectral resolution lidar (HSRL) at Eureka, Canada, show that CALIOP and HSRL capture the evolution of the aerosol backscatter vertical distribution from winter to spring, but a quantitative comparison is inconclusive as the retrieved HSRL backscatter appears to overestimate in situ observations by a factor of 2 at all altitudes. In the High Arctic (>70° N) near the surface (<2 km), CALIOP aerosol extinctions reach a maximum in December–March (10–20 Mm−1), followed by a sharp decline and a minimum in May–September (1–4 Mm−1), thus providing the first pan-Arctic view of Arctic haze seasonality. The European and Asian Arctic sectors display the highest wintertime extinctions, while the Atlantic sector is the cleanest. Over the Low Arctic (60–70° N) near the surface, CALIOP extinctions reach a maximum over land in summer due to boreal forest fires. During summer, we find that smoke aerosols reach higher altitudes (up to 4 km) over eastern Siberia and North America than over northern Eurasia, where they remain mostly confined below 2 km. In the free troposphere, the extinction maximum over the Arctic occurs in March–April at 2–5 km altitude and April–May at 5–8 km. This is consistent with transport from the midlatitudes associated with the annual maximum in cyclonic activity and blocking patterns in the Northern Hemisphere. A strong gradient in aerosol extinction is observed between 60° N and 70° N in the summer. This is likely due to efficient stratocumulus wet scavenging at high latitudes combined with the poleward retreat of the polar front. Interannual variability in the middle and upper troposphere is associated with biomass burning events (high extinctions observed by CALIOP in spring 2008 and summer 2010) and volcanic eruptions (Kasatochi in August 2008 and Sarychev in June 2009). CALIOP displays below-average extinctions observed from August 2009 through May 2010, which appear to be linked with a strongly negative Arctic Oscillation index.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.175 · 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.

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

Citations69
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207