Convection Initiation Aided by Lake-Breeze Convergence over the Niagara Peninsula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Observations from the 2015 Environment and Climate Change Canada Pan/Parapan American Science Showcase (ECPASS) and real-case, cloud-resolving numerical simulations with the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model are used to investigate two cases of moist convection forced by lake-breeze convergence over southern Ontario (18 July and 15 August 2015). The two cases shared several characteristics, including high pressure conditions, similar morning soundings, and isolated afternoon convection along a line of lake-breeze convergence between Lakes Erie and Ontario. However, the convection was significantly stronger in the August case, with robustly deeper clouds and larger radar reflectivities than in the July case. Synoptic and mesoscale analyses of these events reveal that the key difference between them was their large-scale forcing. The July event exhibited a combination of strong warm advection and large-scale descent at midlevels (850–650 hPa), which created an inversion layer that capped cloud tops at 4–6 km. The August case exhibited similar features (large-scale descent and warm advection), but these were focused at higher levels (700–400 hPa) and weaker. As a consequence, the convection in the August case was less suppressed at midlevels and ascended deeper (reaching over 8 km). Although the subcloud updraft along the lake-breeze convergence zone was also found to be stronger in the August case, this difference was found to be an effect, rather than a cause, of stronger moist convection within the cloud layer.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.038 | 0.003 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".