MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521326839 · doi:10.5194/amt-9-4701-2016

AerGOM, an improved algorithm for stratospheric aerosol extinction retrieval from GOMOS observations – Part 2: Intercomparisons

2016· article· en· W2521326839 on OpenAlexaff
Charles Robert, Christine Bingen, F. Vanhellemont, Nina Mateshvili, Emmanuel Dekemper, C. Tétard, D. Fussen, Adam Bourassa, Claus Zehner

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric measurement techniques · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersBelgian Federal Science Policy OfficeEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsAerosolEnvironmental scienceCirrusStratosphereRemote sensingOsirisExtinction (optical mineralogy)Atmospheric sciencesWavelengthRayleigh scatteringAltitude (triangle)MeteorologyPhysicsOpticsGeographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. AerGOM is a retrieval algorithm developed for the GOMOS instrument onboard Envisat as an alternative to the operational retrieval (IPF). AerGOM enhances the quality of the stratospheric aerosol extinction retrieval due to the extension of the spectral range used, refines the aerosol spectral parameterization, the simultaneous inversion of all atmospheric species as well as an improvement of the Rayleigh scattering correction. The retrieval algorithm allows for a good characterization of the stratospheric aerosol extinction for a wide range of wavelengths.In this work, we present the results of stratospheric aerosol extinction comparisons between AerGOM and various spaceborne instruments (SAGE II, SAGE III, POAM III, ACE-MAESTRO and OSIRIS) for different wavelengths. The aerosol extinction intercomparisons for λ < 700 nm and above 20 km show agreements with SAGE II version 7 and SAGE III version 4.0 within ±15 % and ±45 %, respectively. There is a strong positive bias below 20 km at λ < 700 nm, which suggests that cirrus clouds at these altitudes have a large impact on the extinction values. Comparisons performed with GOMOS IPF v6.01 alongside AerGOM show that at short wavelengths and altitudes below 20 km, IPF retrievals are more accurate when evaluated against SAGE II and SAGE III but are much less precise than AerGOM. A modified aerosol spectral parameterization can improve AerGOM in this spectral and altitude range and leads to results that have an accuracy similar to IPF retrievals. Comparisons of AerGOM aerosol extinction coefficients with OSIRIS and SAGE III measurements at wavelengths larger than 700 nm show a very large negative bias at altitudes above 25 km. Therefore, the use of AerGOM aerosol extinction data is not recommended for λ > 700 nm.Due to the unique observational technique of GOMOS, some of the results appear to be dependent on the star occultation parameters such as star apparent temperature and magnitude, solar zenith angle and latitude of observation. A systematic analysis is carried out to identify biases in the dataset, using the various spaceborne instruments as references. The quality of the aerosol retrieval is mainly influenced by the star magnitude, as well as star temperature to a lesser degree. To ensure good-quality profiles, we suggest to select occultations performed with star magnitude M < 2.5 and star temperature T > 6 × 103 K. Stray-light contamination is negligible for extinction coefficients below 700 nm using occultations performed with a solar zenith angle > 110° but becomes important at larger wavelengths. Comparison of AerGOM results in the tropics shows an enhanced bias below 20 km that seem to confirm cirrus clouds as its cause. There are also differences between mid-latitude and tropical observations that cannot yet be explained, with a bias difference of up to 25 %.This bias characterization is extremely important for data users and might prove valuable for the production of unbiased long-term merged dataset.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.923
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric measurement techniquesSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207