| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Hopfner, M., et al.
(författare)
-
Validation of MIPAS ClONO2 measurements
- 2007
-
Ingår i: Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics. - : Copernicus GmbH. - 1680-7316 .- 1680-7324. ; 7, s. 257-281
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Altitude profiles of ClONO2 retrieved with the IMK (Institut fur Meteorologie und Klimaforschung) science-oriented data processor from MIPAS/Envisat (Michelson Interferometer for Passive Atmospheric Sounding on Envisat) mid-infrared limb emission measurements between July 2002 and March 2004 have been validated by comparison with balloon-borne (Mark IV, FIRS2, MIPAS-B), airborne (MIPAS-STR), ground-based (Spitsbergen, Thule, Kiruna, Harestua, Jungfraujoch, Izana, Wollongong, Lauder), and spaceborne (ACE-FTS) observations. With few exceptions we found very good agreement between these instruments and MIPAS with no evidence for any bias in most cases and altitude regions. For balloon-borne measurements typical absolute mean differences are below 0.05 ppbv over the whole altitude range from 10 to 39 km. In case of ACE-FTS observations mean differences are below 0.03 ppbv for observations below 26 km. Above this altitude the comparison with ACE-FTS is affected by the photochemically induced diurnal variation of ClONO2. Correction for this by use of a chemical transport model led to an overcompensation of the photochemical effect by up to 0.1 ppbv at altitudes of 30-35 km in case of MIPAS-ACE-FTS comparisons while for the balloon-borne observations no such inconsistency has been detected. The comparison of MIPAS derived total column amounts with ground-based observations revealed no significant bias in the MIPAS data. Mean differences between MIPAS and FTIR column abundances are 0.11 +/- 0.12 x 10(14) cm(-2) (1.0 +/- 1.1%) and -0.09 +/- 0.19 x 10(14) cm(-2) (-0.8 +/- 1.7%), depending on the coincidence criterion applied. chi(2) tests have been performed to assess the combined precision estimates of MIPAS and the related instruments. When no exact coincidences were available as in case of MIPAS-FTIR or MIPAS-ACE-FTS comparisons it has been necessary to take into consideration a coincidence error term to account for chi(2) deviations. From the resulting chi(2) profiles there is no evidence for a systematic over/underestimation of the MIPAS random error analysis.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Breznau, Nate, et al.
(författare)
-
Observing many researchers using the same data and hypothesis reveals a hidden universe of uncertainty
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. - : National Academy of Sciences. - 0027-8424 .- 1091-6490. ; 119:44
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- This study explores how researchers analytical choices affect the reliability of scientific findings. Most discussions of reliability problems in science focus on systematic biases. We broaden the lens to emphasize the idiosyncrasy of conscious and unconscious decisions that researchers make during data analysis. We coordinated 161 researchers in 73 research teams and observed their research decisions as they used the same data to independently test the same prominent social science hypothesis: that greater immigration reduces support for social policies among the public. In this typical case of social science research, research teams reported both widely diverging numerical findings and substantive conclusions despite identical start conditions. Researchers expertise, prior beliefs, and expectations barely predict the wide variation in research outcomes. More than 95% of the total variance in numerical results remains unexplained even after qualitative coding of all identifiable decisions in each teams workflow. This reveals a universe of uncertainty that remains hidden when considering a single study in isolation. The idiosyncratic nature of how researchers results and conclusions varied is a previously underappreciated explanation for why many scientific hypotheses remain contested. These results call for greater epistemic humility and clarity in reporting scientific findings.
|
|
