Sensitivity of single column model simulations of Arctic springtime clouds to different cloud cover and mixed phase cloud parameterizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The single column model of the Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling and Analysis (CCCma) climate model is used to simulate Arctic spring cloud properties observed during the Surface Heat Budget of the Arctic Ocean (SHEBA) experiment. The model is driven by the rawinsonde observations constrained European Center for Medium‐Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) reanalysis data. Five cloud parameterizations, including three statistical and two explicit schemes, are compared and the sensitivity to mixed phase cloud parameterizations is studied. Using the original mixed phase cloud parameterization of the model, the statistical cloud schemes produce more cloud cover, cloud water, and precipitation than the explicit schemes and in general agree better with observations. The mixed phase cloud parameterization from ECMWF decreases the initial saturation specific humidity threshold of cloud formation. This improves the simulated cloud cover in the explicit schemes and reduces the difference between the different cloud schemes. On the other hand, because the ECMWF mixed phase cloud scheme does not consider the Bergeron‐Findeisen process, less ice crystals are formed. This leads to a higher liquid water path and less precipitation than what was observed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".