Assessment of regional and interannual variations in tropospheric ozone in chemical reanalyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We evaluate regional and interannual variations in tropospheric ozone in five chemical reanalyses, consisting of the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service reanalysis (CAMSRA), the second-generation Tropospheric Chemistry Reanalysis (TCR-2), the GEOS-Chem reanalysis, the Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) regional analysis, and the Chinese air quality reanalysis (CAQRA). We find that there are large regional differences (about 10–15 nmol mol-1) in mean surface ozone between the reanalyses. GEOS-Chem has high ozone relative to the ensemble mean across most continental regions, whereas CAMSRA has low ozone. Comparison with surface ozone observations shows that the reanalyses are biased high relative to the observations, with surface ozone biases exceeding 10 nmol mol-1 in GEOS-Chem. We find that CAMSRA has the smallest bias with respect to the observations, with negative biases in Europe, and in the central and western US, and positive biases everywhere else. In the free troposphere the reanalyses are in good agreement, and the mean bias between the reanalyses and ozonesonde observations are small, less than 4 nmol mol-1 at 500 hPa. In addition, the correlations between the ozonesondes and the reanalyses are as high as 0.8 and 0.9 in the southern and northern midlatitudes respectively. The results suggest that chemical reanalyses should provide valuable information for quantifying variations in ozone in the free troposphere. However, to enhance the utility of the surface ozone analyses, improvements in the reanalyses are needed to better exploit assimilated observations to mitigate the impact of discrepancies in the model chemistry and ozone precursor emissions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".