MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412835660 · doi:10.5194/acp-25-8355-2025

Modelling Arctic lower-tropospheric ozone: processes controlling seasonal variations

2025· article· en· W4412835660 on OpenAlexaff
Wanmin Gong, S. R. Beagley, K. Toyota, Henrik Skov, Jesper Heile Christensen, Alexandru Lupu, Diane Pendlebury, Junhua Zhang, Ulaş İm, Yugo Kanaya, Alfonso Saiz‐Lopez, Roberto Sommariva, Peter Effertz, John W. Halfacre, Nis Jepsen, Rigel Kivi, Theodore K. Koenig, Katrin Müller, Claus Nordstrøm, Irina Petropavlovskikh, P. B. Shepson, William R. Simpson, Sverre Solberg, Ralf M. Staebler, D. W. Tarasick, Roeland Van Malderen, Mika Vestenius

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOzoneAtmospheric sciencesTropospheric ozoneTroposphereClimatologyEnvironmental scienceArcticThe arcticSeasonalityMeteorologyOceanographyGeographyGeologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous assessments on modelling Arctic tropospheric ozone (O 3 ) have shown that most atmospheric models continue to experience difficulties in simulating tropospheric O 3 in the Arctic, particularly in capturing the seasonal variations at coastal sites, primarily attributed to the lack of representation of surface bromine chemistry in the Arctic. In this study, two independent chemical transport models (CTMs), DEHM (Danish Eulerian Hemispheric Model) and GEM-MACH (Global Environmental Multi-scale – Modelling Air quality and Chemistry), were used to simulate Arctic lower-tropospheric O 3 for the year 2015 at considerably higher horizontal resolutions (25 and 15 km, respectively) than the large-scale models in the previous assessments. Both models include bromine chemistry but with different mechanistic representations of bromine sources from snow- and ice-covered polar regions: a blowing-snow bromine source mechanism in DEHM and a snowpack bromine source mechanism in GEM-MACH. Model results were compared with a suite of observations in the Arctic, including hourly observations from surface sites and mobile platforms (buoys and ships) and ozonesonde profiles, to evaluate models' ability to simulate Arctic lower-tropospheric O 3 , particularly in capturing the seasonal variations and the key processes controlling these variations. Both models are found to behave quite similarly outside the spring period and are able to capture the observed overall surface O 3 seasonal cycle and synoptic-scale variabilities, as well as the O 3 vertical profiles in the Arctic. GEM-MACH (with the snowpack bromine source mechanism) was able to simulate most of the observed springtime ozone depletion events (ODEs) at the coastal and buoy sites well, while DEHM (with the blowing-snow bromine source mechanism) simulated much fewer ODEs. The present study demonstrates that the springtime O 3 depletion process plays a central role in driving the surface O 3 seasonal cycle in central Arctic, and that the bromine-mediated ODEs, while occurring most notably within the lowest few hundred metres of air above the Arctic Ocean, can induce a 5 %–7 % of loss in the total pan-Arctic tropospheric O 3 burden during springtime. The model simulations also showed an overall enhancement in the pan-Arctic O 3 concentration due to northern boreal wildfire emissions in summer 2015; the enhancement is more significant at higher altitudes. Higher O 3 excess ratios (ΔO3/ΔCO) found aloft compared to near the surface indicate greater photochemical O 3 production efficiency at higher altitudes in fire-impacted air masses. The model simulations further indicated an enhancement in NO y in the Arctic due to wildfires; a large portion of NO y produced from the wildfire emissions is found in the form of PAN that is transported to the Arctic, particularly at higher altitudes, potentially contributing to O 3 production there.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physics→Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→