Multi-campaign analysis of smoke properties and cloud interactions in the Southeast Atlantic using ORACLES, LASIC, and CLARIFY data with WRF-CAM5
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The southeast Atlantic Ocean provides an excellent natural laboratory to study smoke-cloud interactions, a large driver of uncertainty in climate projections. The value of studying this in particular region is largely attributable to two 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, LASIC, and CLARIFY field campaigns, all of which overlapped in August 2017. Across these campaigns, we compare aerosol, cloud, and thermodynamic variables to quantify model performance and expand upon observational findings of aerosol-cloud effects. Specifically, our approach is to analyze aerosol and cloud properties along flight tracks, picking out uniform legs within tropospheric smoke plumes and in the boundary layer. This unique approach allows us to sample the high spatiotemporal variability that can get lost to large-scale averaging. It also allows process-level comparison of local cloud responses to aerosol conditions, and measure model performance in those same processes. Along with better quantifying model predictive power, we find and justify updates to model parameters and processes to better emulate observations, notably aerosol size parameters. Preliminary results suggest that WRF-CAM5 is activating a smaller percentage of aerosols into cloud droplets than shown in observations, which could lead to biased modeling of aerosol indirect radiative effects on a larger scale. We explore this effect further with CCN activation tendency, updraft, particle sizing, and composition analysis, as well as broader dynamics like entrainment and removal rates. Comparing the model with similar instrument suites across multiple colocated campaigns also allows us to quantify instrument uncertainty in ways that a focus on a single campaign cannot and gives further context to the model performance.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".