MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379537572 · doi:10.5194/amt-16-2795-2023

The classification of atmospheric hydrometeors and aerosols from the EarthCARE radar and lidar: the A-TC, C-TC and AC-TC products

2023· article· en· W4379537572 on OpenAlexaff
Abdanour Irbah, Julien Delanoe͏̈, Gerd‐Jan van Zadelhoff, David P. Donovan, Pavlos Kollias, Bernat Puigdomènech Treserras, Shannon Mason, Robin J. Hogan, Aleksandra Tatarevic

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric measurement techniques · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsLidarRemote sensingRadarSnowEnvironmental scienceAerosolMeteorologyAtmosphere (unit)PrecipitationAtmospheric sciencesGeologyComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The EarthCARE mission aims to probe the Earth's atmosphere by measuring cloud and aerosol profiles using its active instruments, the Cloud Profiling Radar (CPR) and ATmospheric LIDar (ATLID). The correct identification of hydrometeors and aerosols from atmospheric profiles is an important step in retrieving the properties of clouds, aerosols and precipitation. Ambiguities in the nature of atmospheric targets can be removed using the synergy of collocated radar and lidar measurements, which is based on the complementary spectral response of radar and lidar relative to atmospheric targets present in the profiles. The instruments are sensitive to different parts of the particle size distribution and provide independent but overlapping information in optical and microwave wavelengths. ATLID is sensitive to aerosols and small cloud particles, and CPR is sensitive to large ice particles, snowflakes and raindrops. It is therefore possible to better classify atmospheric targets when collocated radar and lidar measurements exist compared to using a single instrument. The cloud phase, precipitation and aerosol type within the column sampled by the two instruments can then be identified. ATLID-CPR target classification (AC-TC) is the product created for this purpose by combining the ATLID target classification (A-TC) and CPR target classification (C-TC). AC-TC is crucial for the subsequent synergistic retrieval of cloud, aerosol and precipitation properties. AC-TC builds upon previous target classifications using CloudSat and CALIPSO synergy while providing richer target classification using the enhanced capabilities of EarthCARE's instruments, specifically CPR's Doppler velocity measurements to distinguish snow and rimed snow from ice clouds and ATLID's lidar ratio measurements to objectively discriminate between different aerosol species and optically thin ice clouds. In this paper, we first describe how the single-instrument A-TC and C-TC products are derived from ATLID and CPR measurements. Then the AC-TC product, which combines the A-TC and C-TC classifications using a synergistic decision matrix, is presented. Simulated EarthCARE observations based on combined cloud-resolving and aerosol model data are used to test the processors generating the target classifications. Finally, the target classifications are evaluated by quantifying the fractions of ice and snow, liquid clouds, rain, and aerosols in the atmosphere that can be successfully identified by each instrument and their synergy. We show that radar–lidar synergy helps better detect ice and snow, with ATLID detecting radiatively important optically thin cirrus and cloud tops, while CPR penetrates most deep and highly concentrated ice clouds. The detection of rain and drizzle is entirely due to C-TC, while that of liquid clouds and aerosols is due to A-TC. The evaluation also shows that simple assumptions can be made to compensate for when the instruments are obscured by extinction (ATLID) or surface clutter and multiple scattering (CPR); this allows for the recovery of the majority of liquid cloud not detected by the active instruments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.752

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations36
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric measurement techniquesSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207