Evaluation of modeled aerosol-cloud interactions using data from the ORACLES and LASIC field campaigns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aerosol-cloud interactions are both uncertain and important in global and regional climate models, and especially in the southeast Atlantic Ocean. This uncertainty in the region is largely due to two correlated factors---the expansive, bright, semi-permanent stratocumulus cloud deck and the fact that southern Africa is the largest source of biomass-burning aerosols in the world. We study this region using the WRF-Chem model with CAM5 aerosols and in situ observations from the ORACLES and LASIC field campaigns in August-October of 2016 through 2018. We compare aerosol and cloud properties to measure and improve model performance and expand upon observational findings of aerosol-cloud effects. Relevant comparison variables include aerosol number concentration, mean particle diameter and spread, CCN activation tendency, hygroscopicity, and cloud droplet number concentrations. Specifically, our approach is to analyze colocated model data along flight tracks to resolve aerosol-cloud interactions. Within and between single-day flights, there is high spatiotemporal variability that can get lost to large-scale averaging analyses. We have found that CCN is substantially under-represented in the model compared to observations. For a given aerosol number concentration, size, supersaturation and hygroscopicity, the model will consider fewer particles as CCN than observations indicate. We plan to explore this result further, diagnosing the model-observation differences more consistently and updating the model with more physically accurate values of aerosol size, concentration, or hygroscopicity based on observations. We will also intercompare multiple instrument platforms involved with the ORACLES and LASIC campaigns. With improved small-scale aerosol-cloud interactions, this work also shows promise to substantially improve that representation in climate models.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".