The effect of smoke emission amount on changes in cloud properties and precipitation: A case study of Canadian boreal wildfires of 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We investigate the influence of wildfire smoke aerosols on cloud microphysics and precipitation using a coupled aerosol‐cloud microphysics‐meteorology model WRF‐Chem‐SMOKE. The Wildfire Automated Biomass Burning Algorithm products are used to compute “online” hourly size‐ and composition‐resolved smoke emission fluxes during Canadian boreal wildfires in the summer of 2007. Comparisons with Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer aerosol optical depth, Ozone Monitoring Instrument aerosol index, and Cloud‐Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation vertical feature mask demonstrate that WRF‐Chem‐SMOKE captures both the horizontal and vertical spatial distribution of smoke. However, estimated smoke emissions result in much lower aerosol optical depth values than those of observations (by about tenfold). Modeling experiments with varying amounts of smoke emissions of 5 to 10 times as high as the original load reveal that low smoke load favors the collision‐coalescence process at a certain stage, leading to either positive or negative changes in the cloud water path (CWP) relative to smoke‐free conditions. For high smoke emissions, changes in CWP are positive, as large as 0.5 kg/m 2 . A domain‐integrated increase in CWP is proportional to smoke loading. By contrast, both positive and negative changes in the rain water path (RWP) and the snow water path (SWP) are found. While domain‐integrated changes in RWP are negative, those in SWP go from negative to positive under a high smoke load. Higher smoke loadings suppress precipitation initially, because of smoke‐induced reduction of the collision‐coalescence and riming processes, but ultimately cause an invigoration of precipitation. We found that precipitation is highly sensitive to 3‐D smoke fields and varies in a nonlinear manner with smoke loads.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".