MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382600314 · doi:10.1525/elementa.2023.00016

Warm air intrusions reaching the MOSAiC expedition in April 2020—The YOPP targeted observing period (TOP)

2023· article· en· W4382600314 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gunilla Svensson, Sonja Murto, Matthew D. Shupe, Felix Pithan, Linus Magnusson, Jonathan J. Day, James D. Doyle, Ian A. Renfrew, Thomas Spengler, Timo Vihma

Bibliographic record

VenueElementa Science of the Anthropocene · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGlobal Ocean Monitoring and Observing ProgramNatural Environment Research CouncilU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNorges ForskningsrådKnut och Alice Wallenbergs StiftelseEuropean Centre for Medium-Range Weather ForecastsStockholms UniversitetNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationSight Research UKMet OfficeVetenskapsrådetNational Science Foundation
KeywordsClimatologyArcticGeologyPeriod (music)PrecipitationOceanographyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the spring period of the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition, an initiative was in place to increase the radiosounding frequency during warm air intrusions in the Atlantic Arctic sector. Two episodes with increased surface temperatures were captured during April 12–22, 2020, during a targeted observing period (TOP). The large-scale circulation efficiently guided the pulses of warm air into the Arctic and the observed surface temperature increased from −30°C to near melting conditions marking the transition to spring, as the temperatures did not return to values below −20°C. Back-trajectory analysis identifies 3 pathways for the transport. For the first temperature maximum, the circulation guided the airmass over the Atlantic to the northern Norwegian coast and then to the MOSAiC site. The second pathway was from the south, and it passed over the Greenland ice sheet and arrived at the observational site as a warm but dry airmass due to precipitation on the windward side. The third pathway was along the Greenland coast and the arriving airmass was both warm and moist. The back trajectories originating from pressure levels between 700 and 900 hPa line up vertically, which is somewhat surprising in this dynamically active environment. The processes acting along the trajectory originating from 800 hPa at the MOSAIC site are analyzed. Vertical profiles and surface energy exchange are presented to depict the airmass transformation based on ERA5 reanalysis fields. The TOP could be used for model evaluation and Lagrangian model studies to improve the representation of the small-scale physical processes that are important for airmass transformation. A comparison between MOSAiC observations and ERA5 reanalysis demonstrates challenges in the representation of small-scale processes, such as turbulence and the contributions to various terms of the surface energy budget, that are often misrepresented in numerical weather prediction and climate models.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.213

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations25
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueElementa Science of the AnthropoceneSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207