Comparisons between SCIAMACHY atmospheric CO <sub>2</sub> retrieved using (FSI) WFM-DOAS to ground based FTIR data and the TM3 chemistry transport model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations, retrieved from spectral measurements made in the near infrared (NIR) by the SCIAMACHY instrument, using Full Spectral Initiation Weighting Function Modified Differential Optical Absorption Spectroscopy (FSI WFM-DOAS), are compared to ground based Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) data and to the output from a global chemistry-transport model. Analysis of the FSI WFM-DOAS retrievals with respect to the ground based FTIR instrument, located at Egbert, Canada, show good agreement with an average negative bias of approximately −4.0% with a standard deviation of ~3.0%. This bias which exhibits an apparent seasonal trend, is of unknown origin, though slight differences between the averaging kernels of the instruments and the limited temporal coverage of the FTIR data may be the cause. The relative scatter of the retrieved vertical column densities is comparable to the spread of the FTIR measurements themselves. Normalizing the CO2 columns using the surface pressure does not affect the magnitude of this bias although it slightly increases the scatter of the FSI data. Comparisons of the FSI retrievals to the TM3 global chemistry-transport model, performed over four selected Northern Hemisphere scenes show good agreement. The correlation, between the time series of the SCIAMACHY and model monthly scene averages, are ~0.7 or greater, demonstrating the ability of SCIAMACHY to detect seasonal changes in the CO2 distribution. The amplitude of the seasonal cycle, peak to peak, observed by SCIAMACHY however, is overestimated by a factor of 2–3, which cannot be explained. The yearly means detected by SCIAMACHY are within 2% of those of the model with the mean difference between the CO2 distributions also approximately 2.0%. Additionally, analysis of the retrieved CO2 distributions reveals structure not evident in the model fields which correlates well with land classification type. From these comparisons, the overall precision and bias of the CO2 columns retrieved by the FSI algorithm are estimated to be close to 1.0% and <4.0% respectively.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".