MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2524806604 · doi:10.5194/acp-16-12005-2016

Greenhouse gas simulations with a coupled meteorological and transportmodel: the predictability of CO <sub>2</sub>

2016· article· en· W2524806604 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Saroja Polavarapu, Michael Neish, Monique Tanguay, Claude Girard, J. de Grandpré, K. Semeniuk, Sylvie Gravel, Shuzhan Ren, Sébastien Roche, Douglas Chan, Kimberly Strong

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversität BremenEurostarsScience and Technology DirectorateStrongUniversity of TorontoCanadian Space AgencyUniversity of WollongongCalifornia Institute of Technology
KeywordsPredictabilityEnvironmental scienceGreenhouse gasClimatologyMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesForcing (mathematics)Flux (metallurgy)MathematicsGeologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A new model for greenhouse gas transport has been developed based on Environment and Climate Change Canada's operational weather and environmental prediction models. When provided with realistic posterior fluxes for CO2, the CO2 simulations compare well to NOAA's CarbonTracker fields and to near-surface continuous measurements, columns from the Total Carbon Column Observing Network (TCCON) and NOAA aircraft profiles. This coupled meteorological and tracer transport model is used to study the predictability of CO2. Predictability concerns the quantification of model forecast errors and thus of transport model errors. CO2 predictions are used to compute model–data mismatches when solving flux inversion problems and the quality of such predictions is a major concern. Here, the loss of meteorological predictability due to uncertain meteorological initial conditions is shown to impact CO2 predictability. The predictability of CO2 is shorter than that of the temperature field and increases near the surface and in the lower stratosphere. When broken down into spatial scales, CO2 predictability at the very largest scales is mainly due to surface fluxes but there is also some sensitivity to the land and ocean surface forcing of meteorological fields. The predictability due to the land and ocean surface is most evident in boreal summer when biospheric uptake produces large spatial gradients in the CO2 field. This is a newly identified source of uncertainty in CO2 predictions but it is expected to be much less significant than uncertainties in fluxes. However, it serves as an upper limit for the more important source of transport error and loss of predictability, which is due to uncertain meteorological analyses. By isolating this component of transport error, it is demonstrated that CO2 can only be defined on large spatial scales due to the presence of meteorological uncertainty. Thus, for a given model, there is a spatial scale below which fluxes cannot be inferred simply due to the fact that meteorological analyses are imperfect. These unresolved spatial scales correspond to small scales near the surface but increase with altitude. By isolating other components of transport error, the largest or limiting error can be identified. For example, a model error due to the lack of convective tracer transport was found to impact transport error on the very largest (wavenumbers less than 5) spatial scales. Thus for wavenumbers greater than 5, transport model error due to meteorological analysis uncertainty is more important for our model than the lack of convective tracer transport.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.203

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations27
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207