MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003761273 · doi:10.1029/2007jd009677

Overlap of fractional cloud for radiation calculations in GCMs: A global analysis using CloudSat and CALIPSO data

2008· article· en· W2003761273 on OpenAlexaff
Howard W. Barker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParametrization (atmospheric modeling)LidarEnvironmental scienceCloud heightAtmospheric sciencesRadiative transferPrecipitationRadarSatelliteMeteorologyCloud topCloud computingRemote sensingPhysicsCloud coverGeologyAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assumptions made by global climate models (GCMs) regarding vertical overlap of fractional amounts of clouds have significant impacts on simulated radiation budgets. A global survey of fractional cloud overlap properties was performed using 2 months of cloud mask data derived from CloudSat‐CALIPSO satellite measurements. Cloud overlap was diagnosed as a combination of maximum and random overlap and characterized by vertically constant decorrelation length cf * . Typically, clouds overlap between maximum and random with smallest cf * (medians → 0 km) associated with small total cloud amounts , while the largest cf * (medians ∼3 km) tend to occur at near 0.7. Global median cf * is ∼2 km with a slight tendency for largest values in the tropics and polar regions during winter. By crudely excising near‐surface precipitation from cloud mask data, cf * were reduced by typically <1 km. Median values of cf * when Sun is down exceed those when Sun is up by almost 1 km when cloud masks are based on radar and lidar data; use of radar only shows minimal diurnal variation but significantly larger cf * . This suggests that sunup inferences of cf * might be biased low by solar noise in lidar data. Cloud mask cross‐section lengths L of 50, 100, 200, 500, and 1000 km were considered. Distributions of cf * are mildly sensitive to L thus suggesting the convenient possibility that a GCM parametrization of cf * might be resolution‐independent over a wide range of resolutions. Simple parametrization of cf * might be possible if excessive random noise in , and hence radiative fluxes, can be tolerated. Using just cloud mask data and assuming a global mean shortwave cloud radiative effect of −45 W m −2 , top of atmosphere shortwave radiative sensitivity to cf * was estimated at 2 to 3 W m −2 km −1 .

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)0.001
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 score0.168
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations71
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Geophysical Research AtmospheresSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207