High Ice Water Content Conditions Associated with Wintertime Elevated Convection in the Midwest
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Aircraft flying through areas of high ice water content (HIWC) can experience engine damage and/or failure. HIWC is typically associated with convection and the microphysical properties of tropical oceanic and coastal convection are well documented as a result of several field campaigns in the past decade. HIWC appears to be less common in extratropical convection, but instances of HIWC-related aircraft issues have been recorded in extratropical weather, even during winter. The present study documents the microphysical properties of HIWC between −25° and 0°C and the meteorological and thermodynamic conditions around that HIWC from five flights from the In-Cloud Icing and Large-Drop Experiment (ICICLE) in the midwestern United States in February 2019. All five cases contained elevated convection above a strong low-level temperature inversion. Values for top-of-inversion mixing ratios and total column precipitable water were about 5 g kg −1 and 20 mm, respectively, according to soundings near each case. A maximum ice water content of 2.1 g m −3 was observed over a length scale of about 500 m, and ice particle size distributions had mean volume equivalent diameters around 1000 μ m. Supercooled drizzle droplets were also observed in the vicinity of the HIWC, raising questions about the possible role of secondary ice production via the freezing and shattering of supercooled large droplets in HIWC formation. The generalizability of these results is limited by the small number of cases, but they provide some of the first in situ observations of extratropical winter HIWC and highlight the need for continued research on these conditions. Significance Statement High ice water content (HIWC) conditions can cause engine damage, stall, and failure in aircraft and can cause air data probes to report erroneous values. Most research on HIWC has focused on tropical convection. This paper serves to draw more attention to the aviation hazard posed by extratropical winter HIWC and the need for additional research into these environments. The cases examined also contained supercooled precipitation-sized liquid droplets. Combined with other recent research, these observations may help to motivate laboratory experiments investigating the role of secondary ice production via droplet freezing and shattering in the formation of HIWC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".