MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171489653 · doi:10.3390/rs13112231

Evaluating Carbon Monoxide and Aerosol Optical Depth Simulations from CAM-Chem Using Satellite Observations

2021· article· en· W3171489653 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Débora Souza Alvim, Júlio Barboza Chiquetto, Monica Taís Siqueira D’Amelio, Bushra Khalid, Dirceu Luís Herdies, Jayant Pendharkar, Sérgio Machado Corrêa, Silvio Nilo Figueroa, Ariane Frassoni, Vinícius Capistrano, Cláudia Boian, Paulo Y. Kubota, Paulo Nobre

Bibliographic record

VenueRemote Sensing · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTroposphereEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesAerosolSatelliteClimatologyModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerChemical transport modelCarbon monoxideMeteorologyChemistryGeologyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The scope of this work was to evaluate simulated carbon monoxide (CO) and aerosol optical depth (AOD) from the CAM-chem model against observed satellite data and additionally explore the empirical relationship of CO, AOD and fire radiative power (FRP). The simulated seasonal global concentrations of CO and AOD were compared, respectively, with the Measurements of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) and the Moderate-Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) satellite products for the period 2010–2014. The CAM-chem simulations were performed with two configurations: (A) tropospheric-only; and (B) tropospheric with stratospheric chemistry. Our results show that the spatial and seasonal distributions of CO and AOD were reasonably reproduced in both model configurations, except over central China, central Africa and equatorial regions of the Atlantic and Western Pacific, where CO was overestimated by 10–50 ppb. In configuration B, the positive CO bias was significantly reduced due to the inclusion of dry deposition, which was not present in the model configuration A. There was greater CO loss due to the chemical reactions, and shorter lifetime of the species with stratospheric chemistry. In summary, the model has difficulty in capturing the exact location of the maxima of the seasonal AOD distributions in both configurations. The AOD was overestimated by 0.1 to 0.25 over desert regions of Africa, the Middle East and Asia in both configurations, but the positive bias was even higher in the version with added stratospheric chemistry. By contrast, the AOD was underestimated over regions associated with anthropogenic activity, such as eastern China and northern India. Concerning the correlations between CO, AOD and FRP, high CO is found during March–April–May (MAM) in the Northern Hemisphere, mainly in China. In the Southern Hemisphere, high CO, AOD, and FRP values were found during August–September–October (ASO) due to fires, mostly in South America and South Africa. In South America, high AOD levels were observed over subtropical Brazil, Paraguay and Bolivia. Sparsely urbanized regions showed higher correlations between CO and FRP (0.7–0.9), particularly in tropical areas, such as the western Amazon region. There was a high correlation between CO and aerosols from biomass burning at the transition between the forest and savanna environments over eastern and central Africa. It was also possible to observe the transport of these pollutants from the African continent to the Brazilian coast. High correlations between CO and AOD were found over southeastern Asian countries, and correlations between FRP and AOD (0.5–0.8) were found over higher latitude regions such as Canada and Siberia as well as in tropical areas. Higher correlations between CO and FRP are observed in Savanna and Tropical forests (South America, Central America, Africa, Australia, and Southeast Asia) than FRP x AOD. In contrast, boreal forests in Russia, particularly in Siberia, show a higher FRP x AOD correlation than FRP x CO. In tropical forests, CO production is likely favored over aerosol, while in temperate forests, aerosol production is more than CO compared to tropical forests. On the east coast of the United States, the eastern border of the USA with Canada, eastern China, on the border between China, Russia, and Mongolia, and the border between North India and China, there is a high correlation of CO x AOD and a low correlation between FRP with both CO and AOD. Therefore, such emissions in these regions are not generated by forest fires but by industries and vehicular emissions since these are densely populated regions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.203 · 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.

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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRemote SensingSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207