Quantifying sources of black carbon in western North America using observationally based analysis and an emission tagging technique in the Community Atmosphere Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The Community Atmosphere Model (CAM5), equipped with a technique to tag black carbon (BC) emissions by source regions and types, has been employed to establish source–receptor relationships for atmospheric BC and its deposition to snow over western North America. The CAM5 simulation was conducted with meteorological fields constrained by reanalysis for year 2013 when measurements of BC in both near-surface air and snow are available for model evaluation. We find that CAM5 has a significant low bias in predicted mixing ratios of BC in snow but only a small low bias in predicted atmospheric concentrations over northwestern USA and western Canada. Even with a strong low bias in snow mixing ratios, radiative transfer calculations show that the BC-in-snow darkening effect is substantially larger than the BC dimming effect at the surface by atmospheric BC. Local sources contribute more to near-surface atmospheric BC and to deposition than distant sources, while the latter are more important in the middle and upper troposphere where wet removal is relatively weak. Fossil fuel (FF) is the dominant source type for total column BC burden over the two regions. FF is also the dominant local source type for BC column burden, deposition, and near-surface BC, while for all distant source regions combined the contribution of biomass/biofuel (BB) is larger than FF. An observationally based positive matrix factorization (PMF) analysis of the snow-impurity chemistry is conducted to quantitatively evaluate the CAM5 BC source-type attribution. While CAM5 is qualitatively consistent with the PMF analysis with respect to partitioning of BC originating from BB and FF emissions, it significantly underestimates the relative contribution of BB. In addition to a possible low bias in BB emissions used in the simulation, the model is likely missing a significant source of snow darkening from local soil found in the observations.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".