Smoke-charged vortices in the stratosphere generated by wildfiresand their behaviour in both hemispheres: comparing Australia 2020to Canada 2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The two most intense wildfires of the last decade that took place in Canada in 2017 and Australia in 2019–2020 were followed by large injections of smoke in the stratosphere due to pyroconvection. It was discovered by Khaykin et al. (2020) and Kablick et al. (2020) that, after the Australian event, part of this smoke self-organized as anticyclonic confined vortices that rose in the mid-latitude stratosphere up to 35 km. Based on CALIOP observations and the ERA5 reanalysis, this new study analyzes the Canadian case and find, similarly, that a large plume penetrated the stratosphere by 12 August 2017 and got trapped within a meso-scale anticyclonic structure which travelled across the Atlantic. It then broke into three offsprings that could be followed until mid-October performing three round the world journeys and rising up to 23 km. We analyze the dynamical structure of the vortices produced by these two wildfires and demonstrate how they are maintained by the assimilation of data from instruments measuring the signature of the vortices in the temperature and ozone field. We propose that these vortices can be seen as bubbles of low absolute potential vorticity and smoke carried vertically across the stratification from the troposphere inside the middle stratosphere by their internal heating, against the descending flux of the Brewer-Dobson circulation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".