Validation of the MIPAS CO<sub>2</sub> volume mixing ratio in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere and comparison with WACCM simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We present the validation of Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding (MIPAS) CO2 daytime concentration in the mesosphere and lower thermosphere by comparing with Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment (ACE) Fourier transform spectrometer and Sounding of the Atmosphere using Broadband Emission Radiometry (SABER) data. MIPAS shows a very good agreement with ACE below 100 km with differences of ∼5%. Above 100 km, MIPAS CO2 is generally lower than ACE with differences growing from ∼5% at 100 km to 20–40% near 110–120 km. Part of this disagreement can be explained by the lack of a nonlocal thermodynamic equilibrium correction in ACE. MIPAS also agrees very well (∼5%) with SABER below 100 km. At 90–105 km, MIPAS is generally smaller than SABER by 10–30% in the polar summers. At 100–120 km, MIPAS and SABER CO2 agree within ∼10% during equinox but, for solstice, MIPAS is larger by 10–25%, except near the polar summer. Whole Atmosphere Community Climate Model (WACCM) CO2 shows the major MIPAS features. At 75–100 km, the agreement is very good (∼5%), with maximum differences of ∼10%. At 95–115 km MIPAS CO2 is larger than WACCM by 20–30% in the winter hemisphere but smaller (20–40%) in the summer. Above 95–100 km WACCM generally overestimates MIPAS CO2 by about 20–80% except in the polar summer where underestimates it by 20–40%. MIPAS CO2 favors a large eddy diffusion below 100 km and suggests that the meridional circulation of the lower thermosphere is stronger than in WACCM. The three instruments and WACCM show a clear increase of CO2 with time, more markedly at 90–100 km.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".