MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135006840 · doi:10.5194/acp-11-4645-2011

Mesosphere-to-stratosphere descent of odd nitrogen in February–March 2009 after sudden stratospheric warming

2011· article· en· W2135006840 on OpenAlexfundno aff
S.-M. Salmi, Pekka T. Verronen, Laura Thölix, E. Kyrölä, Leif Backman, A. Y. Karpechko, Annika Seppälä

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFP7 People: Marie-Curie ActionsNatural Environment Research CouncilCanadian Space AgencyNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEuropean CommissionSight Research UKAcademy of FinlandEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsNOxAtmospheric sciencesStratospherePolar vortexDescent (aeronautics)Environmental scienceSudden stratospheric warmingNitrogen oxidePolarClimatologyMeteorologyChemistryGeologyCombustionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We use the 3-D FinROSE chemistry transport model (CTM) and Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE-FTS) observations to study connections between atmospheric dynamics and middle atmospheric NOx (NOx = NO + NO2) distribution. Two cases are considered in the northern polar regions: (1) descent of mesospheric NOx in February–March 2009 after a major sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) and, for comparison, (2) early 2007 when no NOx descent occurred. The model uses the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) operational data for winds and temperature, and we force NOx at the model upper altitude boundary (80 km) with ACE-FTS observations. We then compare the model results with ACE-FTS observations at lower altitudes. For the periods studied, geomagnetic indices are low, which indicates absence of local NOx production by particle precipitation. This gives us a good opportunity to study effects of atmospheric transport on polar NOx. The model results show no NOx descent in 2007, in agreement with ACE-FTS. In contrast, a large amount of NOx descends in February–March 2009 from the upper to lower mesosphere at latitudes larger than 60° N, i.e. inside the polar vortex. Both observations and model results suggest NOx increases of 150–200 ppb (i.e. by factor of 50) at 65 km due to the descent. However, the model underestimates the amount of NOx around 55 km by 40–60 ppb. According to the model results, chemical loss of NOx is insignificant during the descent period, i.e. polar NOx is mainly controlled by dynamics. The descent is terminated and the polar NOx amounts return to pre-descent levels in mid-March, when the polar vortex breaks. The break-up prevents the descending NOx from reaching the upper stratosphere, where it could participate in catalytic ozone destruction. Both ACE-FTS observations and FinROSE show a decrease of ozone of 20–30 % at 30–50 km from mid-February to mid-March. In the model, these ozone changes are not related to the descent but are due to solar activation of halogen and NOx chemistry.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient 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 score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations41
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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