Testing convective parameterizations with tropical measurements of HNO<sub>3</sub>, CO, H<sub>2</sub>O, and O<sub>3</sub>: Implications for the water vapor budget
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The updraft and downdraft mass flux profiles generated by convective parameterizations differ significantly from each other. Most convective parameterizations are tested against temperature and relative humidity profiles from radiosondes. Chemical tracers provide important additional constraints on the vertical redistribution of mass by convective parameterizations. We compile tropical climatologies of water vapor (H2O), ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), and nitric acid (HNO3) from a variety of satellite, aircraft, and balloon‐based measurement platforms. These climatologies are compared with the profiles predicted by a variant of the Emanuel convective parameterization, a two‐column model of the tropical atmosphere, and by the implementations of the Relaxed Arakawa Schubert (RAS) and Zhang and McFarlane (ZM) parameterizations in a three‐dimensional global forecast model. In general, the models with more pronounced convective outflow in the upper troposphere compare more favorably with observations. These models are associated with increased evaporative moistening in the middle and lower troposphere.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".