MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3162503964 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-9309

Rising smoke-charged vortices in the mid-latitude stratosphere

2021· article· en· W3162503964 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bernard Legras, Hugo Lestrelin, Aurélien Podglajen, Mikail Salihoglu

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStratosphereAnticycloneVortexAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyPolar vortexLatitudeMiddle latitudesStratification (seeds)Environmental sciencePhysicsMeteorologyGeologyAstronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 that, after the Australian event, part of this smoke self-organized as anticyclonic confined vortices that rose against the Brewer-Dobson circulation in the mid-latitude stratosphere up to 35 km (Khaykin et al., 2020, doi: 10.1038/s43247-020-00022-5). Based on CALIOP lidar observations and the ECMWF ERA5 reanalysis, we analyze the Canadian case and find, similarly, that the large plume which penetrated the stratosphere on 12 August 2017 and reached 14 km got trapped thereafter within a meso-scale anticyclonic structure which travelled across the Atlantic. It then broke into three offsprings that could be followed until mid-October 2017, each performing round the world journeys and rising up to 23 km for one of them. We analyze the dynamical structure of the vortices produced by these two wildfires in the ERA 5 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 very low potential vorticity carried vertically by their internal radiative heating across the stratosphere against the stratification. We will also present elements of a theory and first numerical simulations explaining the dynamics of such structures and discuss possible occurrences after other forest fires and volcanic eruptions in the past as well as future likely impacts. This new phenomenon in geophysical fluid mechanics has, to our knowledge, no reported analog (see reference: https://acp.copernicus.org/preprints/acp-2020-1201/).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.212 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→