On the unified estimation of turbulence eddy dissipation rate using Doppler cloud radars and lidars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Coincident profiling observations from Doppler lidars and radars are used to estimate the turbulence energy dissipation rate ( ε ) using three different data sources: (i) Doppler radar velocity (DRV), (ii) Doppler lidar velocity (DLV), and (iii) Doppler radar spectrum width (DRW) measurements. The agreement between the derived ε estimates is examined at the cloud base height of stratiform warm clouds. Collocated ε estimates based on power spectra analysis of DRV and DLV measurements show good agreement (correlation coefficient of 0.86 and 0.78 for both cases analyzed here) during both drizzling and nondrizzling conditions. This suggests that unified (below and above cloud base) time‐height estimates of ε in cloud‐topped boundary layer conditions can be produced. This also suggests that eddy dissipation rate can be estimated throughout the cloud layer without the constraint that clouds need to be nonprecipitating. Eddy dissipation rate estimates based on DRW measurements compare well with the estimates based on Doppler velocity but their performance deteriorates as precipitation size particles are introduced in the radar volume and broaden the DRW values. Based on this finding, a methodology to estimate the Doppler spectra broadening due to the spread of the drop size distribution is presented. The uncertainties in ε introduced by signal‐to‐noise conditions, the estimation of the horizontal wind, the selection of the averaging time window, and the presence of precipitation are discussed in detail.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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 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".