MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150966988 · doi:10.1029/1999gl011098

Why is the cloud albedo — Particle size relationship different in optically thick and optically thin clouds?

2000· article· en· W2150966988 on OpenAlexaff
Ulrike Lohmann, George Tselioudis, Chris Tyler

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiquid water contentAlbedo (alchemy)Cloud albedoEffective radiusAdiabatic processSign (mathematics)RADIUSAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental scienceCloud computingCloud fractionMaterials sciencePhysicsCloud coverAstrophysicsThermodynamicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have analyzed satellite data in terms of the relationship of cloud albedo with droplet size for warm clouds. It was found that for optically thick marine clouds (τ > 15) the cloud albedo increases with decreasing cloud droplet effective radius ( r e ). For optically thinner marine clouds (τ < 15) cloud albedo increases with increasing r e as to be expected if the liquid water content is adiabatic. Hypotheses for the change in sign in the τ ‐ r e relationship are deviations from an adiabatic liquid water content or the presence of single layer versus multi layer clouds. In this study, the ECHAM model, which exhibits this sign change in the τ ‐ r e correlation for optically thin and thick marine clouds, is used to test these hypotheses. Probability density functions of τ ‐ r e show that the change in sign of the correlation can be attributed to precipitating versus non‐precipitating clouds, but not to the difference in single layer versus multi‐layer clouds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.256 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207