Aerosol and cloud microphysics covariability in the northeast Pacific boundary layer estimated with ship‐based and satellite remote sensing observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Ship measurements collected over the northeast Pacific along transects between the port of Los Angeles (33.7°N, 118.2°W) and Honolulu (21.3°N, 157.8°W) during May to August 2013 were utilized to investigate the covariability between marine low cloud microphysical and aerosol properties. Ship‐based retrievals of cloud optical depth (τ) from a Sun photometer and liquid water path (LWP) from a microwave radiometer were combined to derive cloud droplet number concentration Nd and compute a cloud‐aerosol interaction (ACI) metric defined as ACICCN = ∂ ln(Nd)/∂ ln(CCN), with CCN denoting the cloud condensation nuclei concentration measured at 0.4% (CCN0.4) and 0.3% (CCN0.3) supersaturation. Analysis of CCN0.4, accumulation mode aerosol concentration (Na), and extinction coefficient (σext) indicates that Na and σext can be used as CCN0.4 proxies for estimating ACI. ACICCN derived from 10 min averaged Nd and CCN0.4 and CCN0.3, and CCN0.4 regressions using Na and σext, produce high ACICCN: near 1.0, that is, a fractional change in aerosols is associated with an equivalent fractional change in Nd. ACICCN computed in deep boundary layers was small (ACICCN = 0.60), indicating that surface aerosol measurements inadequately represent the aerosol variability below clouds. Satellite cloud retrievals from MODerate‐resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer and GOES‐15 data were compared against ship‐based retrievals and further analyzed to compute a satellite‐based ACICCN. Satellite data correlated well with their ship‐based counterparts with linear correlation coefficients equal to or greater than 0.78. Combined satellite Nd and ship‐based CCN0.4 and Na yielded a maximum ACICCN = 0.88–0.92, a value slightly less than the ship‐based ACICCN, but still consistent with aircraft‐based studies in the eastern Pacific.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".