Properties of Sarychev sulphate aerosols over the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerosols from the Sarychev Peak volcano entered the Arctic region less than a week after the strongest SO 2 eruption on June 15 and 16, 2009 and had, by the first week in July, spread out over the entire Arctic region. These predominantly stratospheric aerosols were determined to be sub‐micron in size and inferred to be composed of sulphates produced from the condensation of SO 2 gases emitted during the eruption. Average (500 nm) Sarychev‐induced stratospheric optical depths (SOD) over the Polar Environmental Atmospheric Research Laboratory (PEARL) at Eureka (Nunavut, Canada) were found to be between 0.03 and 0.05 during the months of July and August, 2009. This estimate, derived from sunphotometry and integrated lidar backscatter profiles was consistent with averages derived from lidar estimates over Ny‐Ålesund (Spitsbergen). The Sarychev SOD e‐folding time at Eureka, deduced from lidar profiles, was found to be approximately 4 months relative to a regression start date of July 27. These profiles initially revealed the presence of multiple Sarychev plumes between the tropopause and about 17 km altitude. After about two months, the complex vertical plume structures had collapsed into fewer, more homogeneous plumes located near the tropopause. It was found that the noisy character of daytime backscatter returns induced an artifactual minimum in the temporal, pan‐Arctic, CALIOP SOD response to Sarychev sulphates. A depolarization ratio discrimination criterion was used to separate the CALIOP stratospheric layer class into a low depolarization subclass which was more representative of Sarychev sulphates. Post‐SAT (post Sarychev Arrival Time) retrievals of the fine mode effective radius (r eff,f ) and the logarithmic standard deviation for two Eureka sites and Thule (Greenland) were all close to 0.25 μ m and 1.6 respectively. The stratospheric analogue to the columnar r eff,f average was estimated to be r eff,f (+) = 0.29 μ m for Eureka data. Stratospheric, Raman lidar retrievals at Ny‐Ålesund, yielded a post‐SAT average of r eff,f (+) = 0.27 μ m. These results are ∼50% larger than the background stratospheric‐aerosol value. They are also about a factor of two larger than modeling values used in recent publications or about a factor of five larger in terms of (per particle) backscatter cross section.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".