Vertical velocities and turbulence in midlatitude anvil cirrus: A comparison between in situ aircraft measurements and ground‐based Doppler cloud radar retrievals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study introduces a statistical comparison of vertical velocity observations within cirrus from aircraft and ground‐based Doppler cloud radar. Two cases of midlatitude anvil cirrus forming under very similar environmental conditions are examined. The case studies benefit from simultaneous observations of vertical velocities in cirrus collected at and around the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Southern Great Plains site during the U.S. Department of Energy Small Particles in Cirrus field campaign. Observations from both platforms suggest that the majority of vertical velocities in the examined midlatitude anvil cirrus cases are roughly within ±1 m s −1 although higher vertical velocities are occasionally observed. The quality of the vertical velocity comparison between in situ aircraft measurements and ground‐based Doppler radar retrievals depends on the case. For the first case on 23 April 2010, the comparison suggests that the radar retrieval may underestimate vertical velocities in the range between roughly 50 cm s −1 and 1 m s −1 . For the second case on 14 June 2010, the agreement between radar and aircraft is excellent, and the differences are largely within the observed variability of vertical velocities within cirrus. Differences in the spatial scales of vertical velocities and turbulence sampled by the aircraft and Doppler radar, which arise due to differences in the temporal resolution of the observational platforms are not found to explain the observed discrepancies. Estimates for the dissipation rate of turbulent kinetic energy agree to within 1 order of magnitude between the two observational platforms.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".