MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396724775 · doi:10.5194/acp-24-5389-2024

Simulating the seeder–feeder impacts on cloud ice and precipitation over the Alps

2024· article· en· W4396724775 on OpenAlexaff
Zane Dedekind, Ulrike Proske, Sylvaine Ferrachat, Ulrike Lohmann, David Neubauer

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric chemistry and physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilChina Scholarship CouncilNational Supercomputing Center, Korea Institute of Science and Technology InformationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsSeederIce crystalsPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceCloud computingAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeologySeedingComputer scienceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ice phase impacts many cloud properties as well as cloud lifetime. Ice particles that sediment into a lower cloud from an upper cloud (external seeder–feeder process) or into the mixed-phase region of a deep cloud from cirrus levels (internal seeder–feeder process) can influence the ice phase of the lower cloud, amplify cloud glaciation and enhance surface precipitation. Recently, numerical weather prediction modeling studies have aimed at representing the ice crystal number concentration in mixed-phase clouds more accurately by including secondary ice formation processes. The increase in the ice crystal number concentration can impact the number of ice particles that sediment into the lower cloud and alter its composition and precipitation formation. In the Swiss Alps, the orography permits the formation of orographic clouds, making it ideal for studying the occurrence of multi-layered clouds and the seeder–feeder process. We present results from a case study on 18 May 2016, showing the occurrence frequency of multi-layered clouds and the seeder–feeder process. About half of all observed clouds were categorized as multi-layered, and the external seeder–feeder process occurred in 10 % of these clouds. Between cloud layers, ≈60 % of the ice particle mass was lost due to sublimation or melting. The external seeder–feeder process was found to be more important than the internal seeder–feeder process with regard to the impact on precipitation. In the case where the external seeder–feeder process was inhibited, the average surface precipitation and riming rate over the domain were both reduced by 8.5 % and 3.9 %, respectively. When ice–graupel collisions were allowed, further large reductions were seen in the liquid water fraction and riming rate. Inhibiting the internal seeder–feeder process enhanced the liquid water fraction by 6 % compared to a reduction of 5.8 % in the cloud condensate, therefore pointing towards the de-amplification in cloud glaciation and a reduction in surface precipitation. Adding to the observational evidence of frequent seeder–feeder situations, at least over Switzerland, our study highlights the extensive influence of sedimenting ice particles on the properties of feeder clouds as well as on precipitation formation.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric chemistry and physicsSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207