Observations of the Microphysics and Type of Wintertime Mixed-Phase Precipitation, and Instrument Comparisons at Sorel, Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Winter mixed-phase precipitation (P) impacts transportation, electric power grids, and homes. Forecasting winter precipitation such as freezing precipitation (ZP), freezing rain (ZR), freezing drizzle (ZL), ice pellets (IPs), and the snow (S) and rain (R) boundary remains challenging due to the complex cloud microphysical and dynamical processes involved, which are difficult to predict with the current numerical weather prediction (NWP) models. Understanding these processes based on observations is crucial for improving NWP models. To aid this effort, Environment and Climate Change Canada deployed specialized instruments such as the Vaisala FD71P and OTT PARSIVEL disdrometers, which measure P type (PT), particle size distributions, and fall velocity (V). The liquid water content (LWC) and mean mass-weighted diameter (Dm) were derived based on the PARSIVEL data during ZP events. Additionally, a Micro Rain Radar (MRR) and an OTT Pluvio2 P gauge were used as part of the Winter Precipitation Type Research Multi-Scale Experiment (WINTRE-MIX) field campaign at Sorel, Quebec. The dataset included manual measurements of the snow water equivalent (SWE), PT, and radiosonde profiles. The analysis revealed that the FD71P and PARSIVEL instruments generally agreed in detecting P and snow events. However, FD71P tended to overestimate ZR and underestimate IPs, while PARSIVEL showed superior detection of R, ZR, and S. Conversely, the FD71P performed better in identifying ZL. These discrepancies may stem from uncertainties in the velocity–diameter (V-D) relationship used to diagnose ZR and IPs. Observations from the MRR, radiosondes, and surface data linked ZR and IP events to melting layers (MLs). IP events were associated with colder surface temperatures (Ts) compared to ZP events. Most ZR and ZL occurrences were characterized by light P with low LWC and specific intensity and Dm thresholds. Additionally, snow events were more common at warmer T compared to liquid P under low surface relative humidity conditions. The Pluvio2 gauge significantly underestimated snowfall compared to the optical probes and manual measurements. However, snowfall estimates derived from PARSIVEL data, adjusted for snow density to account for riming effects, closely matched measurements from the FD71P and manual observations.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".