Insight into global trends in aerosol composition from 2005 to 2015 inferred from the OMI Ultraviolet Aerosol Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Observations of aerosol scattering and absorption offer valuable information about aerosol composition. We apply a simulation of the Ultraviolet Aerosol Index (UVAI), a method of detecting aerosol absorption from satellite observations, to interpret UVAI values observed by the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) from 2005 to 2015 to understand global trends in aerosol composition. We conduct our simulation using the vector radiative transfer model VLIDORT with aerosol fields from the global chemical transport model GEOS-Chem. We examine the 2005–2015 trends in individual aerosol species from GEOS-Chem and apply these trends to the UVAI simulation to calculate the change in simulated UVAI due to the trends in individual aerosol species. We find that global trends in the UVAI are largely explained by trends in absorption by mineral dust, absorption by brown carbon, and scattering by secondary inorganic aerosol. Trends in absorption by mineral dust dominate the simulated UVAI trends over North Africa, the Middle East, East Asia, and Australia. The UVAI simulation resolves observed negative UVAI trends well over Australia, but underestimates positive UVAI trends over North Africa and Central Asia near the Aral Sea and underestimates negative UVAI trends over East Asia. We find evidence of an increasing dust source from the desiccating Aral Sea that may not be well represented by the current generation of models. Trends in absorption by brown carbon dominate the simulated UVAI trends over biomass burning regions. The UVAI simulation reproduces observed negative trends over central South America and West Africa, but underestimates observed UVAI trends over boreal forests. Trends in scattering by secondary inorganic aerosol dominate the simulated UVAI trends over the eastern United States and eastern India. The UVAI simulation slightly overestimates the observed positive UVAI trends over the eastern United States and underestimates the observed negative UVAI trends over India. Quantitative simulation of the OMI UVAI offers new insight into global trends in aerosol composition.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".