MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321493874 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-22

Observational and Modeling Studies of High Ice Water Content Clouds: Implications for Process–Oriented Understanding

2023· preprint· en· W4321493874 on OpenAlexaffabout
Greg M. McFarquhar, Yongjie Huang, Yachao Hu, Peter Brechner, Alexei Korolev, Hugh Morrison, Jason A. Milbrandt, Mengistu Wolde, Cuong Viet Nguyen, Alain Protat

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIce crystalsMesoscale meteorologyEnvironmental scienceConvectionAtmospheric sciencesDew pointMeteorologyLiquid water contentClimatologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High ice water content (HIWC) regions with small ice crystals, where ice water contents (IWCs) are greater than 1.5 g m-3 and median mass diameters (MMDs) less than about 300 micrometers, occur above tropical mesoscale convective systems (MCSs) and can have detrimental impacts on aircraft engines. Data collected by the French Falcon aircraft and the National Research Council of Canada Convair-580 during the 2014 and 2015 High Altitude Ice Crystals and High Ice Water Content (HAIC/HIWC) projects are revisited here along with coordinated modeling studies to investigate processes that can produce such HIWCs. In particular, data collected from 2014 in the vicinity of Darwin Australia and from 2015 in the vicinity of Cayenne French Guyana are used to determine how bulk microphysical properties (e.g., number concentration, IWC, median volume diameter) and characteristics of ice crystal size distributions (i.e., multimodal nature, parameters fit to gamma distributions for each mode) vary with environmental conditions such as temperature, vertical velocity, MCS age, distance from MCS core, and surface characteristics. It is determined that temperature and vertical velocity are the biggest controls of small ice crystals, but younger cells, stronger convective strengths and closer proximity to convective cores also increase the relative importance of small crystals.Numerical simulations conducted using the Weather Research and Forecasting model with four different bulk microphysics schemes generally reproduce the observed temperature, dew-point, and wind structure. However, comparison of regime-specific observations against properties simulated over Cayenne using a variety of existing parameterization schemes show that although the coverage and evolution of convection is well predicted, simulations overestimate the intensity and spatial extent of observed airborne X-band radar reflectivity and do not well depict the peak of observed size distributions with maximum dimensions between 0.1 and 1 mm. To explore formation mechanisms for large numbers of small ice crystals, a series of simulations varying the representation of secondary ice production (SIP) processes were conducted. Simulations including one of three SIP mechanisms separately (i.e., the Hallett–Mossop mechanism, fragmentation during ice–ice collisions, and shattering of freezing droplets) did not replicate the observed ratio of number concentration divided by IWC. However, the simulation including all three SIP processes produced HIWC regions consistent with observations in terms of number concentration and radar reflectivity, which was not replicated using the original P3 two-ice category configuration that only included the Hallett-Mossop mechanism. In summary, observations and simulations show primary ice production plays a key role in generating HIWC regions at temperatures < -40 Celsius, shattering of freezing droplets dominates ice particle production in HIWC regions between -15 and 0 Celsius during the early stage of convection, and fragmentation during ice–ice collisions dominates between -15 and 0 Celsius during the later stage of convection and between -40 and -20 Celsius over the whole convection period. This study thus shows the dominant role of SIP processes in the formation of numerous small crystals in HIWC regions. Implications for future measurement and modeling needs are discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.495
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.134 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207