Evaluation of a high‐resolution numerical weather prediction model's simulated clouds using observations from CloudSat, GOES‐13 and <i>in situ</i> aircraft
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to assess tropical cloud properties predicted by Environment and Climate Change Canada's Global Environmental Multiscale (GEM) model when run with the Milbrandt–Yau double‐moment cloud microphysical scheme and one‐way nesting that culminated at a (∼300 km) 2 inner domain with 0.25 km horizontal grid spacing. The assessment utilized satellite and in situ data collected during the High Ice Water Content (HIWC) and High Altitude Ice Crystals (HAIC) projects for a mesoscale convective system on 16 May 2015 over French Guiana. Data from CloudSat's cloud‐profiling radar and GOES‐13's imager were compared to data either simulated directly by GEM or produced by operating on GEM's cloud data with both the CFMIP (Cloud Feedback Model Intercomparison Project) Observation Simulator Package (COSP) instrument simulator and a three‐dimensional Monte Carlo solar radiative transfer model. In situ observations were made from research aircraft – Canada's National Research Council Convair‐580 and the French SAFIRE Falcon‐20 – whose flight paths were aligned with CloudSat's ground‐track. Spatial and temporal shifts of clouds simulated by GEM compared well to GOES‐13 imagery. There are, however, differences between simulated and observed amounts of high and low cloud. While GEM did well at predicting ranges of ice‐water content (IWC) near 11 km altitude (Falcon‐20), it produces too much graupel and snow near 7 km (Convair‐580). This produced large differences between CloudSat's and COSP‐generated radar reflectivities and two‐way attenuations. On the other hand, CloudSat's inferred values of IWC agree well with in situ samples at both altitudes. Generally, GEM's visible reflectances exceeded GOES‐13's on account of having produced too much low‐level liquid cloud. It is expected that GEM's disproportioning of cloud hydrometeors will improve once it includes a better representation of secondary ice production.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".