Examining the Impacts of Great Lakes Temperature Perturbations on Simulated Precipitation in the Northeastern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Most inland water bodies are not resolved by general circulation models, requiring that lake surface temperatures be estimated. Given the large spatial and temporal variability of the surface temperatures of the North American Great Lakes, such estimations can introduce errors when used as lower boundary conditions for dynamical downscaling. Lake surface temperatures (LSTs) influence moisture and heat fluxes, thus impacting precipitation within the immediate region and potentially in regions downwind of the lakes. For this study, the Advanced Research version of the Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF-ARW) was used to simulate precipitation over the six New England states during a 5-yr historical period. The model simulation was repeated with perturbed LSTs, ranging from 10°C below to 10°C above baseline values obtained from reanalysis data, to determine whether the inclusion of erroneous LST values has an impact on simulated precipitation and synoptic-scale features. Results show that simulated precipitation in New England is statistically correlated with LST perturbations, but this region falls on a wet–dry line of a larger bimodal distribution. Wetter conditions occur to the north and drier conditions occur to the south with increasing LSTs, particularly during the warm season. The precipitation differences coincide with large-scale anomalous temperature, pressure, and moisture patterns. Care must therefore be taken to ensure reasonably accurate Great Lakes surface temperatures when simulating precipitation, especially in southeastern Canada, Maine, and the mid-Atlantic region.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".