Evaluating and improving cloud phase in the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 using spaceborne lidar observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spaceborne lidar observations from the Cloud‐Aerosol Lidar and Infrared Pathfinder Satellite Observation (CALIPSO) satellite are used to evaluate cloud amount and cloud phase in the Community Atmosphere Model version 5 (CAM5), the atmospheric component of a widely used state‐of‐the‐art global coupled climate model (Community Earth System Model). By embedding a lidar simulator within CAM5, the idiosyncrasies of spaceborne lidar cloud detection and phase assignment are replicated. As a result, this study makes scale‐aware and definition‐aware comparisons between model‐simulated and observed cloud amount and cloud phase. In the global mean, CAM5 has insufficient liquid cloud and excessive ice cloud when compared to CALIPSO observations. Over the ice‐covered Arctic Ocean, CAM5 has insufficient liquid cloud in all seasons. Having important implications for projections of future sea level rise, a liquid cloud deficit contributes to a cold bias of 2–3°C for summer daily maximum near‐surface air temperatures at Summit, Greenland. Over the midlatitude storm tracks, CAM5 has excessive ice cloud and insufficient liquid cloud. Storm track cloud phase biases in CAM5 maximize over the Southern Ocean, which also has larger‐than‐observed seasonal variations in cloud phase. Physical parameter modifications reduce the Southern Ocean cloud phase and shortwave radiation biases in CAM5 and illustrate the power of the CALIPSO observations as an observational constraint. The results also highlight the importance of using a regime‐based, as opposed to a geographic‐based, model evaluation approach. More generally, the results demonstrate the importance and value of simulator‐enabled comparisons of cloud phase in models used for future climate projection.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".