Ship-based lidar evaluation of Southern Ocean clouds in the storm-resolving general circulation model ICON and the ERA5 and MERRA-2 reanalyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global storm-resolving models (GSRMs) are the upcoming global climate models. One of them is a 5-km Icosahedral Nonhydrostatic Weather and Climate Model (ICON). Its high resolution means that parameterizations of convection and clouds, including subgrid-scale clouds, are omitted, relying on explicit simulation but still utilizing microphysics and turbulence parameterizations. Standard-resolution (10-100 km) models, which use convection and cloud parameterizations, have substantial cloud biases over the Southern Ocean (SO), adversely affecting radiation and sea surface temperature. The SO is dominated by low clouds, which cannot be observed accurately from space due to overlapping clouds, attenuation, and ground clutter. We evaluated SO clouds in ICON and the ERA5 and MERRA-2 reanalyses using about 2400 days of lidar observations and 2300 radiosonde profiles from 31 voyages and Macquarie Island station during 2010-2021, compared with the models using a ground-based lidar simulator. We found that ICON and the reanalyses underestimate the total cloud fraction by about 10 and 20%, respectively. ICON and ERA5 overestimate the cloud occurrence peak at about 500 m, potentially explained by their lifting condensation levels being too high. The reanalyses strongly underestimate fog or near-surface clouds, and MERRA-2 underestimates cloud occurrence at almost all heights. Outgoing shortwave radiation is overestimated in the reanalyses, implying a ”too few, too bright” cloud problem. Thermodynamic conditions are relatively well represented, but ICON is less stable than observations and MERRA-2 is too humid. SO cloud biases are a substantial issue in the GSRM, but it matches the observations better than the lower-resolution reanalyses.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".