Atmospheric distribution of HCN from satellite observations and 3-D model simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) is an important tracer of biomass burning, but there are significant uncertainties in its atmospheric budget, especially its photochemical and ocean sinks. Here we use a tracer version of the TOMCAT global 3-D chemical transport model to investigate the physical and chemical processes driving the abundance of HCN in the troposphere and stratosphere over the period 2004–2016. The modelled HCN distribution is compared with version 4.1 of the Atmospheric Chemistry Experiment Fourier transform spectrometer (ACE-FTS) HCN satellite data, which provide profiles up to around 42 km, and with ground-based column measurements from the Network for the Detection of Atmospheric Composition Change (NDACC). The long-term ACE-FTS measurements reveal the strong enhancements in upper-tropospheric HCN due to large wildfire events in Indonesia in 2006 and 2015. Our 3-D model simulations confirm previous lower-altitude balloon comparisons that the currently recommended NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) reaction rate coefficient of HCN with OH greatly overestimates the HCN loss. The use of the rate coefficient proposed by Kleinböhl et al. (2006) in combination with the HCN oxidation by O( 1 D) gives good agreement between ACE-FTS observations and the model. Furthermore, the model photochemical loss terms show that the reduction in the HCN mixing ratio with height in the middle stratosphere is mainly driven by the O( 1 D) sink with only a small contribution from a reaction with OH. From comparisons of the model tracers with ground-based HCN observations we test the magnitude of the ocean sink in two different published schemes (Li et al., 2000, 2003). We find that in our 3-D model the two schemes produce HCN abundances which are very different to the NDACC observations but in different directions. A model HCN tracer using the Li et al. (2000) scheme overestimates the HCN concentration by almost a factor of 2, while a HCN tracer using the Li et al. (2003) scheme underestimates the observations by about one-third. To obtain good agreement between the model and observations, we need to scale the magnitudes of the global ocean sinks by factors of 0.25 and 2 for the schemes of Li et al. (2000) and Li et al. (2003), respectively. This work shows that the atmospheric photochemical sinks of HCN now appear well constrained but improvements are needed in parameterizing the major ocean uptake sink.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".