MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6976572229 · doi:10.60692/8yaar-0bb98

Retrieving tropospheric nitrogen dioxide from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument: effects of aerosols, surface reflectance anisotropy, and vertical profile of nitrogen dioxide

2014· article· en· W6976572229 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueGreater South Information System · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolNitrogen dioxideOzone Monitoring InstrumentTroposphereRadiative transferOzoneReflectivityPixel

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Retrievals of tropospheric nitrogen dioxide (NO2) from the Ozone Monitoring Instrument (OMI) are subject to errors in the treatments of aerosols, surface reflectance anisotropy, and vertical profile of NO2. Here we quantify the influences over China via an improved retrieval process. We explicitly account for aerosol optical effects (simulated by nested GEOS-Chem at 0.667° long. × 0.5° lat. and constrained by aerosol measurements), surface reflectance anisotropy, and high-resolution vertical profiles of NO2 (simulated by GEOS-Chem). Prior to the NO2 retrieval, we derive the cloud information using consistent ancillary assumptions. We compare our retrieval to the widely used DOMINO v2 product, using MAX-DOAS measurements at three urban/suburban sites in East China as reference and focusing the analysis on the 127 OMI pixels (in 30 days) closest to the MAX-DOAS sites. We find that our retrieval reduces the interference of aerosols on the retrieved cloud properties, thus enhancing the number of valid OMI pixels by about 25%. Compared to DOMINO v2, our retrieval better captures the day-to-day variability in MAX-DOAS NO2 data (R2 = 0.96 versus 0.72), due to pixel-specific radiative transfer calculations rather than the use of a look-up table, explicit inclusion of aerosols, and consideration of surface reflectance anisotropy. Our retrieved NO2 columns are 54% of the MAX-DOAS data on average, reflecting the inevitable spatial inconsistency between the two types of measurement, errors in MAX-DOAS data, and uncertainties in our OMI retrieval related to aerosols and vertical profile of NO2. Sensitivity tests show that excluding aerosol optical effects can either increase or decrease the retrieved NO2 for individual OMI pixels with an average increase by 14%. Excluding aerosols also complexly affects the retrievals of cloud fraction and particularly cloud pressure. Employing various surface albedo data sets slightly affects the retrieved NO2 on average (within 10%). The retrieved NO2 columns increase when the NO2 profiles are taken from MAX-DOAS retrievals (by 19% on average) or TM4 simulations (by 13%) instead of GEOS-Chem simulations. Our findings are also relevant to retrievals of other pollutants (e.g., sulfur dioxide, ormaldehyde, glyoxal) from UV–visible backscatter satellite instruments.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.498
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGreater South Information SystemSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207