MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402844823 · doi:10.5194/gmd-17-7141-2024

A new lightning scheme in the Canadian Atmospheric Model (CanAM5.1): implementation, evaluation, and projections of lightning and fire in future climates

2024· article· en· W4402844823 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cynthia Whaley, Montana Etten‐Bohm, Courtney Schumacher, Ayodeji Akingunola, Vivek Arora, Jason N. S. Cole, Michael Lazare, David A. Plummer, Knut von Salzen, Barbara Winter

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsLightning (connector)MeteorologyEnvironmental scienceLightning strikeAtmospheric electricityClimatologyGeographyThunderstormGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Lightning is an important atmospheric process for generating reactive nitrogen, resulting in the production of tropospheric ozone, as well as igniting wildland fires, which result in potentially large emissions of many pollutants and short-lived climate forcers. Lightning is also expected to change in frequency and location with the changing climate. As such, lightning is an important component of Earth system models. Until now, the Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM) did not contain an interactive-lightning parameterization. The fire parameterization in CanESM5.1 was designed to use prescribed monthly climatological lightning. In this study, we have added a logistical regression lightning model that predicts lightning occurrence interactively based on three environmental variables and their interactions in CanESM5.1's atmospheric model, CanAM5.1 (Canadian Atmospheric Model), creating the capacity to interactively model lightning, allowing for future projections under different climate scenarios. The modelled lightning and resulting burned area were evaluated against satellite measurements over the historical period, and model biases were found to be acceptable. Modelled lightning had a small negative bias and excellent land–ocean ratio compared to satellite measurements. The modified version of CanESM5.1 was used to simulate two future climate scenarios (SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5; Shared Socioeconomic Pathway) to assess how lightning and burned area change in the future. Under the higher-emissions scenario (SSP5-8.5), CanESM5.1 predicts almost no change to the global mean lightning flash rate by the end of the century (2081–2100 vs. 2015–2035 average). However, there are substantial regional changes to lightning – particularly over land – such as a mean increase of 6 % in the northern mid-latitudes and decrease of −8 % in the tropics. By the century's end, the change in global total burned area with prescribed climatological lightning was about 2 times greater than that with interactive lightning (42 % vs. 26 % increase, respectively). Conversely, in the northern mid-latitudes the use of interactive lightning resulted in 3 times more burned area compared to that with unchanging lightning (48 % vs. 16 % increase, respectively). These results show that the future changes to burned area are greatly dependent on a model's lightning scheme, both spatially and overall.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.798
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207