A comparison between CloudSat and aircraft data for a multilayer, mixed phase cloud system during the Canadian CloudSat‐CALIPSO Validation Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reflectivities recorded by the W‐band Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) aboard NASA's CloudSat satellite and some of CloudSat's retrieval products are compared to Ka‐band radar reflectivities and in situ cloud properties gathered by instrumentation on the NRC's Convair‐580 aircraft. On 20 February 2007, the Convair flew several transects along a 60 nautical mile stretch of CloudSat's afternoon ground track over southern Quebec. On one of the transects it was well within CloudSat's radar's footprint while in situ sampling a mixed phase boundary layer cloud. A cirrus cloud was also sampled before and after overpass. Air temperature and humidity profiles from ECMWF reanalyses, as employed in CloudSat's retrieval stream, agree very well with those measured by the Convair. The boundary layer cloud was clearly visible, to the eye and lidar, and dominated the region's solar radiation budget. It was, however, often below or near the Ka‐band's distance‐dependent minimum detectable signal. In situ samples at overpass revealed it to be composed primarily of small, supercooled droplets at the south end and increasingly intermixed with ice northward. Convair and CloudSat CPR reflectivities for the low cloud agree well, but while CloudSat properly ascribed it as overcast, mixed phase, and mostly liquid near the south end, its estimates of liquid water content LWC (and visible extinction coefficient κ) and droplet effective radii are too small and large, respectively. The cirrus consisted largely of irregular crystals with typical effective radii ∼150 μ m. While both CPR reflectivities agree nicely, CloudSat's estimates of crystal number concentrations are too large by a factor of 5. Nevertheless, distributions of ice water content and κ deduced from in situ data agree quite well with values retrieved from CloudSat algorithms.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".