Detecting thin cirrus in Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer aerosol retrievals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thin cirrus clouds (optical depth (OD) < 0.3) are often undetected by standard cloud masking in satellite aerosol retrieval algorithms. However, the Multiangle Imaging Spectroradiometer (MISR) aerosol retrieval has the potential to discriminate between the scattering phase functions of cirrus and aerosols, thus separating these components. Theoretical tests show that MISR is sensitive to cirrus OD within Max{0.05, 20%}, similar to MISR's sensitivity to aerosol OD, and MISR can distinguish between small and large crystals, even at low latitudes, where the range of scattering angles observed by MISR is smallest. Including just two cirrus components in the aerosol retrieval algorithm would capture typical MISR sensitivity to the natural range of cirrus properties; in situations where cirrus is present but the retrieval comparison space lacks these components, the retrieval tends to underestimate OD. Generally, MISR can also distinguish between cirrus and common aerosol types when the proper cirrus and aerosol optical models are included in the retrieval comparison space and total column OD is >∼0.2. However, in some cases, especially at low latitudes, cirrus can be mistaken for some combinations of dust and large nonabsorbing spherical aerosols, raising a caution about retrievals in dusty marine regions when cirrus is present. Comparisons of MISR with lidar and Aerosol Robotic Network show good agreement in a majority of the cases, but situations where cirrus clouds have optical depths >0.15 and are horizontally inhomogeneous on spatial scales shorter than ∼50 km pose difficulties for cirrus retrieval using the MISR standard aerosol algorithm.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".