MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411821472 · doi:10.5194/acp-16-13541-2016

Intercomparison and evaluation of satellite peroxyacetyl nitrate observations in the upper troposphere–lower stratosphere

2016· article· en· W2411821472 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Richard J. Pope, N. A. D. Richards, Martyn P. Chipperfield, D. P. Moore, S. A. Monks, S. R. Arnold, N. Glatthor, Michael Kiefer, T. J. Breider, Jeremy J. Harrison, J. J. Remedios, C. Warneke, J. M. Roberts, Glenn S. Diskin, L. G. Huey, Armin Wisthaler, Eric C. Apel, P. F. Bernath, Wuhu Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Space AgencySight Research UKNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationÖsterreichische ForschungsförderungsgesellschaftNational Centre for Earth ObservationNatural Environment Research Council
KeywordsTroposphereAtmospheric soundingPeroxyacetyl nitrateStratosphereEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesChemical transport modelMicrowave Limb SounderAdvanced Microwave Sounding UnitSatelliteAtmosphere (unit)ClimatologyAtmospheric chemistryNOxMeteorologyChemistryGeographyOzoneGeologyCombustionPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) is an important chemical species in the troposphere as it aids the long-range transport of NOx and subsequent formation of O3 in relatively clean remote regions. Over the past few decades observations from aircraft campaigns and surface sites have been used to better understand the regional distribution of PAN. However, recent measurements made by satellites allow for a global assessment of PAN in the upper troposphere–lower stratosphere (UTLS). In this study, we investigate global PAN distributions from two independent retrieval methodologies, based on measurements from the Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS) instrument, on board Envisat from the Institute of Meteorology and Climate Research (IMK), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, and the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Leicester (UoL). Retrieving PAN from MIPAS is challenging due to the weak signal in the measurements and contamination from other species. Therefore, we compare the two MIPAS datasets with observations from the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier transform spectrometer (ACE-FTS), in situ aircraft data and the 3-D chemical transport model TOMCAT. MIPAS shows peak UTLS PAN concentrations over the biomass burning regions (e.g. ranging from 150 to > 200 pptv at 150 hPa) and during the summertime Asian monsoon as enhanced convection aids the vertical transport of PAN from the lower atmosphere. At 150 hPa, we find significant differences between the two MIPAS datasets in the tropics, where IMK PAN concentrations are larger by 50–100 pptv. Comparisons between MIPAS and ACE-FTS show better agreement with the UoL MIPAS PAN concentrations at 200 hPa, but with mixed results above this altitude. TOMCAT generally captures the magnitude and structure of climatological aircraft PAN profiles within the observational variability allowing it to be used to investigate the MIPAS PAN differences. TOMCAT–MIPAS comparisons show that the model is both positively (UoL) and negatively (IMK) biased against the satellite products. These results indicate that satellite PAN observations are able to detect realistic spatial variations in PAN in the UTLS, but further work is needed to resolve differences in existing retrievals to allow quantitative use of the products.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations41
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207