Precipitation Sensitivity to Surface Heat Fluxes over North America in Reanalysis and Model Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A new methodology for assessing the impact of surface heat fluxes on precipitation is applied to data from the North American Regional Reanalysis (NARR) and to output from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory’s Atmospheric Model 2.1 (AM2.1). The method assesses the sensitivity of afternoon convective rainfall frequency and intensity to the late-morning partitioning of latent and sensible heating, quantified in terms of evaporative fraction (EF). Over North America, both NARR and AM2.1 indicate sensitivity of convective rainfall triggering to EF but no appreciable influence of EF on convective rainfall amounts. Functional relationships between the triggering feedback strength (TFS) metric and mean EF demonstrate the occurrence of stronger coupling for mean EF in the range of 0.6 to 0.8. To leading order, AM2.1 exhibits spatial distributions and seasonality of the EF impact on triggering resembling those seen in NARR: rainfall probability increases with higher EF over the eastern United States and Mexico and peaks in Northern Hemisphere summer. Over those regions, the impact of EF variability on afternoon rainfall triggering in summer can explain up to 50% of seasonal rainfall variability. However, the AM2.1 metrics also exhibit some features not present in NARR, for example, strong coupling extending northwestward from the central Great Plains into Canada. Sources of disagreement may include model hydroclimatic biases that affect the mean patterns and variability of surface flux partitioning, with EF variability typically much lower in NARR. Finally, the authors also discuss the consistency of their results with other assessments of land–precipitation coupling obtained from different methodologies.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".