Investigation of the sulphate‐induced freezing inhibition effect from CloudSat and CALIPSO measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hypothesis according to which higher sulphate concentrations favor ice clouds made of larger ice crystals is tested using data sets from the CloudSat and Cloud‐Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellites. This is a potential consequence of the sulphate‐induced freezing inhibition (SIFI) effect, namely, the hypothesis that sulphates contribute to inhibit the onset of ice crystal formation by deactivating ice‐forming nuclei during Arctic winter. A simple index based on the backscattering at 532 nm and the color ratio from the CALIPSO lidar measurements is compared against in situ sulphate concentration time series and used as a proxy for this variable. An algorithm using the lidar data and the CloudSat radar microphysical retrievals is also developed for identifying cloud types, focusing on those supposedly favored by the SIFI effect. The analysis includes the effect of the lidar off‐nadir angle on the sulphate index and the cloud classification, the validation of the index, as well as the production of circum‐Arctic maps of the sulphate index and of the SIFI‐favored clouds fraction. The increase of the lidar off‐nadir angle is shown to cause an increase in the measured depolarization ratio and hence in the ability to detect ice crystals. The index correlates positively with both sulphates and sea salt concentrations, with a Pearson correlation coefficient ( ) varying from 0.10 to 0.42 for the different comparisons performed. Ultimate findings are the results of two correlation tests of the SIFI effect, which allow for a new outlook on its possible role in the Arctic troposphere during winter.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".