Recent Advances in Aerosol Optical Depth Measurements in Polar Regions: Insights from the Polar-AOD Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A multi-year analysis of aerosol optical depth (AOD, τ) and Ångström exponent (α) was conducted using ground-based photometer data from 15 Arctic and 11 Antarctic sites. Extending the dataset of Tomasi et al. 2015 through December 2024, the study incorporates stellar and lunar photometric observations to fill data gaps during the polar night. Daily mean values of τ at 0.500 μm and α (0.440–0.870 μm) were used to derive monthly means and seasonal histograms. In the Arctic, persistent haze events in winter and early spring lead to peak τ values. A decreasing trend in Arctic τ suggests the impact of European emission regulations, while biomass-burning aerosols are becoming more significant. In Antarctica, τ increases from the plateau to the coast. Fine-mode aerosols dominate in summer-autumn, while coarse-mode particles are more prevalent in winter-spring. Shipborne photometer data align well with ground-based measurements, confirming the reliability of mobile observations. Trend analyses using the Mann-Kendall test and Theil-Sen regression indicate a significant negative trend in τ at Andenes (-2.43 % per year), likely driven by reduced anthropogenic emissions. Antarctic stations such as Syowa and South Pole show positive trends (+3.84 % and +3.54 % per year), though these are subject to uncertainties from data limitations and instrument changes. This work contributes to the Polar-AOD network (https://polaraod.net/; last access 15/05/2025), enhancing the understanding of aerosol variability and long-term trends in polar regions while promoting open data access for the scientific community.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".