An investigation of methods for injecting emissions from boreal wildfires using WRF-Chem during ARCTAS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The Weather Research and Forecasting Model (WRF) is considered a "next generation" mesoscale meteorology model. The inclusion of a chemistry module (WRF-Chem) allows transport simulations of chemical and aerosol species such as those observed during NASA's Arctic Research of the Composition of the Troposphere from Aircraft and Satellites (ARCTAS) in 2008. The ARCTAS summer deployment phase during June and July coincided with large boreal wildfires in Saskatchewan and Eastern Russia. One of the most important aspects of simulating wildfire plume transport is the height at which emissions are injected. WRF-Chem contains an integrated one-dimensional plume rise model to determine the appropriate injection layer. The plume rise model accounts for thermal buoyancy associated with fires and the local atmospheric stability. This study compares results from the plume model against those of two more traditional injection methods: Injecting within the planetary boundary layer, and in a layer 3–5 km above ground level. Fire locations are satellite derived from the GOES Wildfire Automated Biomass Burning Algorithm (WF_ABBA) and the MODIS thermal hotspot detection. Two methods for preprocessing these fire data are compared: The prep_chem_sources method included with WRF-Chem, and the Naval Research Laboratory's Fire Locating and Monitoring of Burning Emissions (FLAMBE). Results from the simulations are compared with satellite-derived products from the AIRS, MISR and CALIOP sensors. Results show that the FLAMBE pre-processor produces more realistic injection heights than does prep_chem_sources. The plume rise model using FLAMBE provides the best agreement with satellite-observed injection heights. Conversely, when the planetary boundary layer or the 3–5 km AGL layer were filled with emissions, the resulting injection heights exhibit less agreement with observed plume heights. Results indicate that differences in injection heights produce different transport pathways. These differences are especially pronounced in areas of strong vertical wind shear and when the integration period is long.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".