Intercomparison of model simulations of mixed‐phase clouds observed during the ARM Mixed‐Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. I: single‐layer cloud
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Results are presented from an intercomparison of single‐column and cloud‐resolving model simulations of a cold‐air outbreak mixed‐phase stratocumulus cloud observed during the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) programme's Mixed‐Phase Arctic Cloud Experiment. The observed cloud occurred in a well‐mixed boundary layer with a cloud‐top temperature of − 15 °C. The average liquid water path of around 160 g m −2 was about two‐thirds of the adiabatic value and far greater than the average mass of ice which when integrated from the surface to cloud top was around 15 g m −2 . Simulations of 17 single‐column models (SCMs) and 9 cloud‐resolving models (CRMs) are compared. While the simulated ice water path is generally consistent with observed values, the median SCM and CRM liquid water path is a factor‐of‐three smaller than observed. Results from a sensitivity study in which models removed ice microphysics suggest that in many models the interaction between liquid and ice‐phase microphysics is responsible for the large model underestimate of liquid water path. Despite this underestimate, the simulated liquid and ice water paths of several models are consistent with observed values. Furthermore, models with more sophisticated microphysics simulate liquid and ice water paths that are in better agreement with the observed values, although considerable scatter exists. Although no single factor guarantees a good simulation, these results emphasize the need for improvement in the model representation of mixed‐phase microphysics. Copyright © 2009 Royal Meteorological Society
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 it