MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W6981809431

The features of MCSs in Canada and the United States using convection-permitting climate models forced by ERA5 and CMIP6

2023· dissertation· en· W6981809431 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff

Notice bibliographique

RevueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan) · 2023
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueHistory of Science and Natural History
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésClimate modelMesoscale meteorologyThunderstormDownscalingClimate changeConvectionWater cycleGridAtmospheric model
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Global climate models (GCMs) are tools that help us understand how the climate works and how it might change in the future. They are based on mathematical equations that describe the physical processes of the atmosphere, ocean, land and ice. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is a project that compares different GCMs and their results. Regional Climate Models (RCMs) are similar to GCMs, but they focus on a smaller area and have more details. However, RCMs rely on parameterization schemes to represent subgrid-scale processes that cannot be resolved by the model grid. Parameterization schemes introduce uncertainties and errors in the model results, especially for complex and nonlinear processes like convection and cloud formation. Convection-permitting climate models (CPCMs) are a type of RCMs that can capture small-scale weather features like thunderstorms and clouds without using parameterization schemes. By using a finer grid resolution, CPCMs can explicitly resolve these processes and reduce the uncertainties and biases from parameterization schemes. This makes CPCMs more accurate and reliable for simulating the climate and its changes. Mesoscale Convective Systems (MCSs) are large groups of thunderstorms that can produce heavy rain, hail and strong winds. They are important for the water cycle and the climate of the Rocky Mountains in Canada and the United States. The main goals of this study are to use CPCMs to 1) analyze how well they represent the long-term features of MCSs before they occur in the current climate and 2) project how these features may vary in the future under different greenhouse gas emission scenarios. \n\n\nThis study aimed to improve our knowledge of the features of MCSs in current and future climates using CPCMs. However, the study was limited by the data availability of both the input forcing datasets and observational datasets. The study had three main objectives: 1) to understand the climatological characteristics of MCSs in the central United States (2004 - 2018), 2) to examine the regional features of MCSs over the Canadian Prairies (2009 - 2018), and 3) to project the future climate in the central United States (2076 - 2100) for summer seasons. \nDue to the computational resources required to run the CPCMs, the domain size and analysis period were restricted to 24 degrees in longitude and 20 degrees in latitude, respectively, as well as the summer season.\nThis constraint prevented the study from covering longer periods or larger domains for each objective. The study analyzed meteorological parameters that represented both dynamical and thermodynamic conditions. However, it did not consider physical factors, even though the higher resolution CPCMs showed agreement with previous studies. One of the benefits of the study was that it provided detailed information about the conditions preceding convection when identifying daytime and nighttime MCSs. The findings of the study also yielded important insights into the regional features of MCSs but were extremely restricted to statistical results, lacking a comprehensive analysis of the physical aspects. However, it is essential to interpret these findings with caution, as they may not fully capture the entire range of variability and uncertainty of MCSs in different climates and regions. Furthermore, the absence of explicitly simulated convection initiation limits their physical meaning.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesÉtudes des sciences et des technologies
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,074
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,009
Tête enseignante GPT0,156
Écart entre enseignants0,147 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueUniversity Library (University of Saskatchewan)Même sujetHistory of Science and Natural HistoryTravaux en français237 207