MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140296069 · doi:10.5194/acp-16-799-2016

Observations of cloud microphysics and ice formation during COPE

2016· article· en· W2140296069 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Taylor, T. W. Choularton, Alan Blyth, Z. Liu, Keith Bower, Jonathan Crosier, M. W. Gallagher, P. I. Williams, J. R. Dorsey, Melanie Flynn, Lindsay Bennett, Ying Huang, Jeffrey R. French, Alexei Korolev, P. R. A. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersDivision of Atmospheric and Geospace SciencesSight Research UKUniversity of ManchesterNatural Environment Research CouncilMet OfficeNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDrizzleIce nucleusAtmospheric sciencesIce crystalsEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationClimatologyGeologyMeteorologyGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. We present microphysical observations of cumulus clouds measured over the southwest peninsula of the UK during the COnvective Precipitation Experiment (COPE) in August 2013, which are framed into a wider context using ground-based and airborne radar measurements. Two lines of cumulus clouds formed in the early afternoon along convergence lines aligned with the peninsula. The lines became longer and broader during the afternoon due to new cell formation and stratiform regions forming downwind of the convective cells. Ice concentrations up to 350 L−1, well in excess of the expected ice nuclei (IN) concentrations, were measured in the mature stratiform regions, suggesting that secondary ice production was active. Detailed sampling focused on an isolated liquid cloud that glaciated as it matured to merge with a band of cloud downwind. In the initial cell, drizzle concentrations increased from ∼ 0.5 to ∼ 20 L−1 in around 20 min. Ice concentrations developed up to a few per litre, which is around the level expected of primary IN. The ice images were most consistent with freezing drizzle, rather than smaller cloud drops or interstitial IN forming the first ice. As new cells emerged in and around the cloud, ice concentrations up to 2 orders of magnitude higher than the predicted IN concentrations developed, and the cloud glaciated over a period of 12–15 min. Almost all of the first ice particles to be observed were frozen drops, while vapour-grown ice crystals were dominant in the latter stages. Our observations are consistent with the production of large numbers of small secondary ice crystals/fragments, by a mechanism such as Hallett–Mossop or droplets shattering upon freezing. Some of the small ice froze drizzle drops on contact, while others grew more slowly by vapour deposition. Graupel and columns were seen in cloud penetrations up to the −12 °C level, though many ice particles were mixed habit due to riming and growth by vapour deposition at multiple temperatures. Our observations demonstrate that the freezing of drizzle/raindrops is an important process that dominates the formation of large ice in the intermediate stages of cloud development. As these frozen drops were the first precipitation observed, interactions between the warm-rain and secondary ice production processes appear to be key to determining the timing and location of precipitation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.309
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.178 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations85
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207