Impact of Uncertainties in the Atmospheric Boundary Layer Height on the Numerical Simulation of Chemical Species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Uncertainties in the atmospheric boundary layer height (ABL-H) are associated either with the uncertainties in meteorological fields or the definition of the ABL-H. When the ABL-H is involved in ABL parameterization schemes these uncertainties can have impacts on numerical simulation of chemical species. The impacts are examined numerically by employing a 1-D diffusion model with the K-profile scheme and 3-D air quality forecast model with the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE)-based scheme. The dependency on the ABL-H in the two schemes is very different. Sensitivity tests with the 1-D model show that the over-estimated/under-estimated ABL-H leads to the decrease/increase of concentration of tracers under both stable and unstable conditions due to the increase/decrease of the volume of tracers within the ABL. Under unstable conditions, the over-estimated/under-estimated ABL-H also enhances/weakens the vertical diffusivity, and leads to the decrease/increase of the concentration of tracers for the negative/positive vertical gradient of tracer. These impacts result in a little change with height within the ABL. The impacts of the ABL-H through the counter-gradient term and entrainment flux are much smaller than the impact through changing the volume of the ABL and vertical diffusivity in the ABL. Sensitivity tests with the 3-D numerical model with the TKE scheme show that over urban areas the over-estimated/under-estimated ABL-H leads to the increase/decrease of TKE in the whole ABL but does not always lead to stronger/weaker diffusivity and lower/higher concentrations of chemical species.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".