MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2325069307 · doi:10.5194/acpd-15-4973-2015

Polar processing in a split vortex: early winter Arctic ozone loss in 2012/13

2015· article· en· W2325069307 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G. L. Manney, Zachary D. Lawrence, M. L. Santee, N. J. Livesey, A. Lambert, M. C. Pitts

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolar vortexMicrowave Limb SounderStratosphereAtmospheric sciencesVortexOzone depletionSudden stratospheric warmingEnvironmental scienceOzoneClimatologyMeteorologyPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A sudden stratospheric warming (SSW) in early January 2013 caused the polar vortex to split. After the lower stratospheric vortex split on 8 January, the two offspring vortices – one over Canada and the other over Siberia – remained intact, well-confined, and largely at latitudes that received sunlight until they reunited at the end of January. As the SSW began, temperatures abruptly rose above chlorine activation thresholds throughout the lower stratosphere. The vortex was very disturbed prior to the SSW, and was exposed to much more sunlight than usual in December 2012 and January 2013. Aura Microwave Limb Sounder (MLS) nitric acid (HNO3) data and observations from CALIPSO (Cloud-Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observations) indicate extensive polar stratospheric cloud (PSC) activity, with evidence of PSCs containing solid nitric acid trihydrate particles during much of December 2012. Consistent with the sunlight exposure and PSC activity, MLS observations show that chlorine monoxide (ClO) became enhanced early in December. Despite the cessation of PSC activity with the onset of the SSW, enhanced vortex ClO persisted until mid-February, indicating lingering chlorine activation. The smaller Canadian offspring vortex had lower temperatures, lower HNO3, lower hydrogen chloride (HCl), and higher ClO in late January than the Siberian vortex. Chlorine deactivation began later in the Canadian than in the Siberian vortex. HNO3 remained depressed within the vortices after temperatures rose above the PSC existence threshold, and passive transport calculations indicate vortex-averaged denitrification of about 4 ppbv; the resulting low HNO3 values persisted until the vortex dissipated in mid-February. Consistent with the strong chlorine activation and exposure to sunlight, MLS measurements show rapid ozone loss commencing in mid-December and continuing through January. Lagrangian transport estimates suggest ~ 0.7–0.8 ppmv (parts per million by volume) vortex-averaged chemical ozone loss by late January near 500 K (~ 21 km), with substantial loss occurring from ~ 450 to 550 K. The surface area of PSCs in December 2012 was larger than that in any other December observed by CALIPSO. As a result of denitrification, HNO3 abundances in 2012/13 were among the lowest in the MLS record for the Arctic. ClO enhancement was much greater in December 2012 through mid-January 2013 than that at the corresponding time in any other Arctic winter observed by MLS. Furthermore, reformation of HCl appeared to play a greater role in chlorine deactivation than in more typical Arctic winters. Ozone loss in December 2012 and January 2013 was larger than any previously observed in those months. This pattern of exceptional early winter polar processing and ozone loss resulted from the unique combination of dynamical conditions associated with the early January 2013 SSW, namely unusually low temperatures in December 2012 and offspring vortices that remained well-confined and largely in sunlit regions for about a month after the vortex split.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate→French-language works237,207→