The effect of aerosol on surface cloud radiative forcing in the Arctic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Cloud radiative forcing is a very important concept to understand what kind of role the clouds play in climate change with thermal effect or albedo effect. In spite of that much progress has been achieved, the clouds are still poorly described in the climate models. Due to the complex aerosol-cloud-radiation interactions, high surface albedo of snow and ice cover, and without solar radiation in long period of the year, the Arctic strong warming caused by increasing greenhouse gases (as most GCMs suggested) has not been verified by the observations. In this study, we were dedicated to quantify the aerosol effect on the Arctic cloud radiative forcing by Northern Aerosol Regional Climate Model (NARCM). Major aerosol species such as Arctic haze sulphate, black carbon, sea salt, organics and dust have been included during our simulations. By inter-comparisons with the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) data, we find surface cloud radiative forcing (SCRF) is −22 W/m2 for shortwave and 36 W/m2 for longwave. Total cloud forcing is 14 W/m2 with minimum of −35 W/m2 in early July. If aerosols are taken into account, the SCRF has been increased during winter while negative SCRF has been enhanced during summer. Our estimate of aerosol forcing is about −6 W/m2 in the Arctic.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".