MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412894949 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-3465

Reconciling Satellite–Model Discrepancies in Aerosol–Cloud Interactions Using Near-LES Simulations of Marine Boundary Layer Clouds

2025· preprint· en· W4412894949 on OpenAlexafffund
Shaoyue Qiu, Xue Zheng, Peng Wu, Hsiang‐He Lee, Xiaoli Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersBiological and Environmental ResearchCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsAerosolCloud computingSatelliteBoundary layerEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesPlanetary boundary layerLayer (electronics)Boundary (topology)Remote sensingGeologyPhysicsComputer scienceMaterials scienceMathematicsAstronomyMechanicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Aerosol–cloud interactions (ACI) remain the largest source of uncertainty in estimates of anthropogenic radiative forcing, largely due to inconsistent cloud liquid water path (LWP) responses to aerosol perturbations between observations and models. To reconcile this discrepancy, we conducted a series of simulations at near large-eddy scale (~200 m) driven by realistic meteorology over the Eastern North Atlantic, and evaluated LWP susceptibility, precipitation processes, and boundary layer thermodynamics using satellite and ground-based observations from the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement program. Simulated LWP responses show strong dependence on cloud state. Non-precipitating thin clouds exhibit a modest LWP decrease (mean susceptibility = −0.13) due to enhanced turbulent mixing and evaporation. In contrast, non-precipitating thick clouds show the largest model–observation mismatch, with simulated LWP susceptibilities significantly more positive than observed (+0.32 vs. −0.69). This discrepancy stems from excessive precipitation linked to underestimated entrainment, overactive accretion, and overly broad drop size distributions in polluted clouds. While our high-resolution setup avoids the excessive drizzling common in coarse models and captures key regime transitions, these biases persist—highlighting the need for improved representation of cloud-top processes, precipitation, and aerosol effects in numerical models, which cannot be fully resolved by increasing model resolution alone. Furthermore, misrepresented moisture inversions in reanalysis, which is used for the model initial and boundary conditions, introduce a moist bias in cloud-top relative humidity, amplifying positive LWP susceptibility. Our results also suggest that large negative cloud droplet number– LWP relationships in observations may reflect internal cloud processes rather than true ACI effects.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds→French-language works237,207→