MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

How does explicit tropospheric VOC chemistry affect radiative forcing? Investigation of preindustrial climate using the Community Earth System Model version 2

2025· article· W4417047035 on OpenAlexaff
Noah A. Stanton, Neil F. Tandon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEarth system scienceAerosolClimate modelAtmospheric chemistryTroposphereRadiative transferClimate systemTropospheric ozone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The representation of volatile organic compound (VOC) chemistry in earth system models directly impacts aerosol formation. Earlier research has shown that explicitly representing VOC chemistry produces significant impacts on simulated climate compared to an implicit ”SOAG scheme” approach that prescribes a bulk gas phase precursor to SOA formation. In this study, we examine the effective radiative forcing (ERF) of explicit VOC chemistry in the Community Earth System Model version 2 under preindustrial conditions using the fixed sea surface temperature (fSST) approach. 150-year fSST simulations were performed in the following two configurations: 1) WF, with explicit VOC chemistry in the troposphere, and 2) MF, with a SOAG scheme in the troposphere. The computed ERF due to explicit VOC chemistry is 0.49 +- 0.033 Wm-2. Additional analysis establishes that this ERF is mostly accounted for by direct aerosol effects, which are in turn likely driven by widespread SOA reductions in the accumulation mode. Earlier studies have also found widespread SOA reductions in response to explicit VOC chemistry, but the precise reasons for these reductions remain unclear. 250-year simulations using fully coupled versions of WF and MF (called ”WC” and ”MC”) are also performed. WC produces 0.40 +- 0.012 K warming of global mean surface temperature (GMST), as is expected given the positive ERF. This result contrasts with an earlier study by the same authors which produced nearly unchanged GMST. We discuss the reasons for this contrast, along with our greater confidence in the results of this study.

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)0.001
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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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