The Influence of Atmospheric Cloud Radiative Effects on the Large-Scale Stratospheric Circulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies have explored the influence of atmospheric cloud radiative effects (ACRE) on the tropospheric circulation. Here the authors explore the influence of ACRE on the stratospheric circulation. The response of the stratospheric circulation to ACRE is assessed by comparing simulations run with and without ACRE. The stratospheric circulation response to ACRE is reproducible in a range of different GCMs and can be interpreted in the context of both a dynamically driven and a radiatively driven component. The dynamic component is linked to ACRE-induced changes in the vertical and meridional fluxes of wave activity. The ACRE-induced changes in the vertical flux of wave activity into the stratosphere are consistent with the ACRE-induced changes in tropospheric baroclinicity and thus the amplitude of midlatitude baroclinic eddies. They account for a strengthening of the Brewer–Dobson circulation, a cooling of the tropical lower stratosphere, a weakening and warming of the polar vortex, a reduction of static stability near the tropical tropopause transition layer, and a shortening of the time scale of extratropical stratospheric variability. The ACRE-induced changes in the equatorward flux of wave activity in the low-latitude stratosphere account for a strengthening of the zonal wind in the subtropical lower to midstratosphere. The radiative component is linked to ACRE-induced changes in the flux of longwave radiation into the lower stratosphere. The changes in radiative fluxes lead to a cooling of the extratropical lower stratosphere, changes in the static stability and cloud fraction near the extratropical tropopause, and a shortening of the time scales of extratropical stratospheric variability. The results highlight a previously overlooked pathway through which tropospheric climate influences the stratosphere.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".