Observed APO Seasonal Cycle in the Pacific: Estimation of Autumn O <sub>2</sub> Oceanic Emissions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, we investigated the seasonal cycle of atmospheric potential oxygen (APO), a unique tracer of air‐sea gas exchanges of molecular oxygen (O 2 ) and carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), expressed as APO = O 2 + 1.1 × CO 2 . APO data were obtained from flask air samples collected since the late 1990s at three Japanese ground stations and on commercial cargo ships sailing between Japan and Australia/New Zealand, North America, and Southeast Asia. We also analyzed the APO spatial distribution and seasonal cycles with simulations from an atmospheric transport model using climatological oceanic O 2 fluxes from an empirical product that relate O 2 flux to ocean heat as input. Model simulations reproduced the observed APO seasonal cycles generally well, but with larger amplitudes and earlier occurrence of seasonal minima and maxima than in the observations. Moreover, the observed seasonal cycles exhibited larger APO enhancements than the simulations in autumn and early winter, especially in the North Pacific at 20°N–60°N. These enhancements remained when refining the comparison by adjusting the simulated APO peak‐to‐peak amplitudes and seasonal phases to the observations. This suggests additional O 2 emissions in the North Pacific, not well expressed in the air‐sea O 2 fluxes used as input for our model simulations. The average autumn enhancement at 40°N–60°N was approximately twice that measured at 20°N–40°N. Confirming previous studies, our results indicate two distinct mechanisms possibly contributing to the additional oceanic O 2 emissions: outgassing from a subsurface shallow oxygen maximum at 20°N–40°N and autumn phytoplankton bloom at 40°N–60°N.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".