MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4414193518 · doi:10.1029/2025jd043928

Stratospheric Injection Lifetimes

2025· article· en· W4414193518 on OpenAlexafffund
M. R. Schoeberl, Matthew Toohey, Yi Wang, Rei Ueyama

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersCanadian Space AgencyEarth Sciences DivisionNuclear Safety and Security CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsStratospherePlumeAerosolSettlingWater vaporSulfate aerosolRADIUSMicrowave Limb Sounder

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Material injected to the stratosphere by volcanoes and pyrocumulonimbus clouds (pyroCbs) is observed to have different lifetimes depending on the altitude, latitude, season of the injection, and removal processes. We adopt a framework that describes the stratospheric lifetime of injected material as the sum of lag and decay timescales and compute these quantities in tracer simulations by injecting trajectory parcels and tracking them over 8 years. We simulate the evolution of the water vapor plume from the January 2022 Hunga eruption. The simulation suggests a lag time of 1.4 years and the decay time 2.35 ± 0.05 years, producing a stratospheric lifetime of 3.75 ± 0.05 years. From Microwave Limb Sounder observations, we estimate the Hunga water vapor plume decay time to be 2.6 ± 0.75 years and the lifetime to be 4.0 ± 0.75 years which is in good agreement with our model calculations. Overall, we find that injected material lifetime increases with altitude and decreases with the latitude. If polar stratospheric cloud formation is a loss process, the lifetime is shortened. Aerosol gravitational settling also shortens the lifetime and should be included especially for aerosols with >0.5 μm radius. We use the observed lifetime of the Hunga aerosol plume and gravitational settling rate to estimate a particle median radius of ∼0.3 µm in agreement with other estimates. Our calculations are also relevant to geoengineering plans for modifying the stratospheric albedo, where sustained stratospheric aerosol concentrations are envisioned.

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)0.001
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres→Same topicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate→French-language works237,207→