Reconciling differences between large-eddy simulations and Doppler-lidar observations of continental shallow cumulus cloud-base vertical velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigate a significant model-observation difference found between cloud-base vertical velocity for continental shallow cumulus simulated using large-eddy simulations (LES) and observed by Doppler lidar measurements over the U.S. Southern Great Plains Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Facility. The LES cloud-base vertical velocity is dominated by updrafts that are consistent with a general picture for convective clouds but is inconsistent with Doppler lidar observations that also show the presence of considerable downdrafts. The underestimation of simulated downdrafts is found to be a robust feature, being insensitive to various numerical, physical, or dynamical choices. We find that simulations can more closely reproduce observations only after improving the model physics to use size-resolved microphysics and horizontal longwave radiation, both of which modify the cloud buoyancy and velocity structure near cloud side edges. The results suggest that treatments that capture these structures are needed for the proper simulation and subsequent parameterization development of shallow cumulus vertical transport.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".