Intercomparison of large‐eddy simulations of Arctic mixed‐phase clouds: Importance of ice size distribution assumptions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large‐eddy simulations of mixed‐phase Arctic clouds by 11 different models are analyzed with the goal of improving understanding and model representation of processes controlling the evolution of these clouds. In a case based on observations from the Indirect and Semi‐Direct Aerosol Campaign (ISDAC), it is found that ice number concentration, N i , exerts significant influence on the cloud structure. Increasing N i leads to a substantial reduction in liquid water path (LWP), in agreement with earlier studies. In contrast to previous intercomparison studies, all models here use the same ice particle properties (i.e., mass‐size, mass‐fall speed, and mass‐capacitance relationships) and a common radiation parameterization. The constrained setup exposes the importance of ice particle size distributions (PSDs) in influencing cloud evolution. A clear separation in LWP and IWP predicted by models with bin and bulk microphysical treatments is documented and attributed primarily to the assumed shape of ice PSD used in bulk schemes. Compared to the bin schemes that explicitly predict the PSD, schemes assuming exponential ice PSD underestimate ice growth by vapor deposition and overestimate mass‐weighted fall speed leading to an underprediction of IWP by a factor of two in the considered case. Sensitivity tests indicate LWP and IWP are much closer to the bin model simulations when a modified shape factor which is similar to that predicted by bin model simulation is used in bulk scheme. These results demonstrate the importance of representation of ice PSD in determining the partitioning of liquid and ice and the longevity of mixed‐phase 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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".