Comparison of upper tropospheric carbon monoxide from MOPITT, ACE‐FTS, and HIPPO‐QCLS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Products from the Measurements Of Pollution In The Troposphere (MOPITT) instrument are regularly validated using in situ airborne measurements. However, few of these measurements reach into the upper troposphere, thus hindering MOPITT validation in that region. Here we evaluate upper tropospheric (~500 hPa to the tropopause) MOPITT CO profiles by comparing them to satellite Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier Transform Spectrometer (ACE‐FTS) retrievals and to measurements from the High‐performance Instrumented Airborne Platform for Environmental Research Pole to Pole Observations (HIPPO) Quantum Cascade Laser Spectrometer (QCLS). Direct comparison of colocated v5 MOPITT thermal infrared‐only retrievals, v3.0 ACE‐FTS retrievals, and HIPPO‐QCLS measurements shows a slight positive MOPITT CO bias within its 10% accuracy requirement with respect to the other two data sets. Direct comparison of colocated ACE‐FTS and HIPPO‐QCLS measurements results in a small number of samples due to the large disparity in sampling pattern and density of these data sets. Thus, two additional indirect techniques for comparison of noncoincident data sets have been applied: tracer‐tracer (CO‐O 3 ) correlation analysis and analysis of profiles in tropopause coordinates. These techniques suggest a negative bias of ACE‐FTS with respect to HIPPO‐QCLS; this could be caused by differences in resolution (horizontal, vertical) or by deficiencies in the ACE‐FTS CO retrievals below ~20 km of altitude, among others. We also investigate the temporal stability of MOPITT and ACE‐FTS data, which provide unique global CO records and are thus important in climate analysis. Our results indicate that the relative bias between the two data sets has remained generally stable during the 2004–2010 period.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".