Influence of Dynamic Ozone Dry Deposition on Ozone Pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Identifying the contributions of chemistry and transport to observed ozone pollution using regional‐to‐global models relies on accurate representation of ozone dry deposition. We use a recently developed configuration of the NOAA GFDL chemistry‐climate model—in which the atmosphere and land are coupled through dry deposition—to investigate the influence of ozone dry deposition on ozone pollution over northern midlatitudes. In our model, deposition pathways are tied to dynamic terrestrial processes, such as photosynthesis and water cycling through the canopy and soil. Small increases in winter deposition due to more process‐based representation of snow and deposition to surfaces reduce hemispheric‐scale ozone throughout the lower troposphere by 5–12 ppb, improving agreement with observations relative to a simulation with the standard configuration for ozone dry deposition. Declining snow cover by the end of the 21st‐century tempers the previously identified influence of rising methane on winter ozone. Dynamic dry deposition changes summer surface ozone by −4 to +7 ppb. While previous studies emphasize the importance of uptake by plant stomata, new diagnostic tracking of depositional pathways reveals a widespread impact of nonstomatal deposition on ozone pollution. Daily variability in both stomatal and nonstomatal deposition contribute to daily variability in ozone pollution. Twenty‐first century changes in summer deposition result from a balance among changes in individual pathways, reflecting differing responses to both high carbon dioxide (through plant physiology versus biomass accumulation) and water availability. Our findings highlight a need for constraints on the processes driving ozone dry deposition to test representation in regional‐to‐global models.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".