MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155436401 · doi:10.1002/qj.203

Scaling turbulent atmospheric stratification. III: Space–time stratification of passive scalars from lidar data

2008· article· en· W2155436401 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Radkevich, S. Lovejoy, K. B. Strawbridge, Daniel Schertzer, M. Lilley

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvectionScalingTurbulenceStratification (seeds)IntermittencyLidarCirrusPhysicsMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeometryMathematicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this third and final part of the series, we concentrate on the temporal behaviour of atmospheric passive scalars. We first recall that—although the full (x, y, z, t) turbulent processes respect an anisotropic scale invariance—that due to advection—the generator will generally not be a diagonal matrix. This implies that the scaling of (1‐D) temporal series will generally involve three exponents in real space: 1/3, 1/2, 3/5, for spectra βτ = 5/3, 2, 11/5, with the first and last corresponding to domination by advection (horizontal and vertical respectively), and the second to pure temporal development (no advection). We survey the literature and find that almost all the empirical βτ values are indeed in the range 5/3 to 2. We then use meteorological analyses to argue that, although pure temporal development is unlikely to be dominant for time‐scales less than the eddy turnover time of the largest structures (about 2 weeks), an intermittent vertical velocity could quite easily explain the occasionally observed βτ ≈ 2 spectra. We then use state‐of‐the‐art vertically pointing lidar data of backscatter ratios from both aerosols and cirrus clouds yielding several (z, t) vertical space–time cross‐sections with resolution of 3.75 m in the vertical, 0.5–30 s in time and spanning 3–4 orders of magnitude in temporal scale. We first test the predictions of the anisotropic, multifractal extension of the Corrsin‐Obukhov law in the vertical and in time, separately finding that the cirrus and aerosol backscatters both followed the theoretical (anisotropic) scalings accurately; three of the six cases show dominance by the horizontal wind, the others by the vertical wind. In order to test the theory in arbitrary directions in this (z, t) space, and in order to get more complete information about the underlying physical scale, we develop and apply a new Anisotropic Scaling Analysis Technique (ASAT) which is based on a nonlinear space–time coordinate transformation. This transforms the original differential scaling into standard self‐similar scaling; there remains only a ‘trivial’ anisotropy. This method is used in real space on 2‐D structure functions. It is applied to both the new (z, t) data as well as the (x, z) data discussed in part II. Using ASAT, we verify the theory to within about 10% over more than three orders of magnitude of space–time scales in arbitrary directions in (x, z) and (z, t) spaces. By considering the high‐ (and low‐) order structure functions, we verify the theory for both weak and strong structures; as predicted, their average anisotropies are apparently the same. Putting together the results for (x, z) and (z, t), and assuming that there is no overall stratification in the horizontal (x, y) plane, we find that the overall (x, y, z, t) space is found to have an effective ‘elliptical dimension’ characterizing the overall space–time stratification equal to Deff, st = 3.21 ± 0.05. Copyright © 2008 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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations38
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological SocietySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207