MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388890433 · doi:10.5194/amt-16-5575-2023

Estimation of anthropogenic and volcanic SO <sub>2</sub> emissions from satellite data in the presence of snow/ice on the ground

2023· article· en· W4388890433 on OpenAlexaff
Vitali Fioletov, C. A. McLinden, Debora Griffin, N. A. Krotkov, Can Li, Joanna Joiner, Nicolas Theys, Simon Carn

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric measurement techniques · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEarth Sciences DivisionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceOzone Monitoring InstrumentSatelliteAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyTroposphereLatitudeRemote sensingClimatologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Early versions of satellite nadir-viewing UV SO2 data products did not explicitly account for the effects of snow/ice on retrievals. Snow-covered terrain, with its high reflectance in the UV, typically enhances satellite sensitivity to boundary layer pollution. However, a significant fraction of high-quality cloud-free measurements over snow is currently excluded from analyses. This leads to increased uncertainties of satellite emission estimates and potential seasonal biases due to the lack of data in winter months for some high-latitudinal sources. In this study, we investigated how Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) and TROPOspheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI) satellite SO2 measurements over snow-covered surfaces can be used to improve the annual emissions reported in our SO2 emissions catalogue (version 2; Fioletov et al., 2023). Only 100 out of 759 sources listed in the catalogue have 10 % or more of the observations over snow. However, for 40 high-latitude sources, more than 30 % of measurements suitable for emission calculations were made over snow-covered surfaces. For example, in the case of Norilsk, the world's largest SO2 point-source, annual emission estimates in the SO2 catalogue were based only on 3–4 summer months, while the addition of data for snow conditions extends that period to 7 months. Emissions in the SO2 catalogue were based on satellite measurements of SO2 slant column densities (SCDs) that were converted to vertical column densities (VCDs) using site-specific clear-sky air mass factors (AMFs), calculated for snow-free conditions. The same approach was applied to measurements with snow on the ground whereby a new set of constant, site-specific, clear sky with snow AMFs was created, and these were applied to the measured SCDs. Annual emissions were then estimated for each source considering (i) only clear-sky and snow-free days, (ii) only clear-sky with snow days, and (iii) a merged dataset (snow and snow-free conditions). For individual sources, the difference between emissions estimated for snow and snow-free conditions is within ±20 % for three-quarters of smelters and oil and gas sources and with practically no systematic bias. This is excellent consistency given that there is typically a factor of 3–5 difference between AMFs for snow and snow-free conditions. For coal-fired power plants, however, emissions estimated for snow conditions are on average 25 % higher than for snow-free conditions; this difference is likely real and due to larger production (consumption of coal) and emissions in wintertime.

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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric measurement techniquesSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207