The high Arctic in extreme winters: vortex, temperature, and MLS and ACE-FTS trace gas evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The first three Arctic winters of the ACE mission represented two extremes of winter variability: Stratospheric sudden warmings (SSWs) in 2004 and 2006 were among the strongest, most prolonged on record; 2005 was a record cold winter. Canadian Arctic Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) Validation Campaigns were conducted at Eureka (80° N, 86° W) during each of these winters. New satellite measurements from ACE-Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS), Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER), and Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS), along with meteorological analyses and Eureka lidar temperatures, are used to detail the meteorology in these winters, to demonstrate its influence on transport, and to provide a context for interpretation of ACE-FTS and validation campaign observations. During the 2004 and 2006 SSWs, the vortex broke down throughout the stratosphere, reformed quickly in the upper stratosphere, and remained weak in the middle and lower stratosphere. The stratopause reformed at very high altitude, near 75 km. ACE measurements covered both vortex and extra-vortex conditions in each winter, except in late-February through mid-March 2004 and 2006, when the strong, pole-centered vortex that reformed after the SSWs resulted in ACE sampling only inside the vortex in the middle through upper stratosphere. The 2004 and 2006 Eureka campaigns were during the recovery from the SSWs, with the redeveloping vortex over Eureka. 2005 was the coldest winter on record in the lower stratosphere, but with an early final warming in mid-March. The vortex was over Eureka at the start of the 2005 campaign, but moved away as it broke up. Disparate temperature profile structure and vortex evolution resulted in much lower (higher) temperatures in the upper (lower) stratosphere in 2004 and 2006 than in 2005. Satellite temperatures agree well with lidar data up to 50–60 km, and ACE-FTS, MLS and SABER show good agreement in high-latitude temperatures throughout the winters. Consistent with a strong, cold upper stratospheric vortex and enhanced radiative cooling after the SSWs, MLS and ACE-FTS trace gas measurements show strongly enhanced descent in the upper stratospheric vortex in late January through March 2006 compared to that in 2005.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".