Sensitivity of Atmospheric Energetics to Optically Thin Ice Clouds During the Arctic Polar Night
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cloud feedback is a major source of uncertainty in climate projections. In particular, Arctic clouds, arguably one of the most poorly understood aspects of the climate system, strongly modulate radiative energy fluxes from the Earth’s surface to the top of the atmosphere. In situ and satellite observations reveal the existence of ubiquitous optically thin ice clouds (TICs) in the Arctic during polar nights, whose influence on atmospheric energy is still poorly understood. This study quantifies the effect of TICs on the atmospheric energy budget during polar winter. A reanalysis-driven simulation based on the Canadian Regional Climate Model version 6 (CRCM6) was used with the Predicted Particle Properties (P3) scheme (2016) to produce an ensemble of 3 km mesh simulations. This set is composed of three simulations: CRCM6 (reference, the original dynamically coupled cloud formation), CRCM6 (nocld) (clear-sky) and CRCM6 (100%cld) (overcast, 100% cloud cover as a forcing perturbation). Using the regional energetic equations (Nikiema and Laprise), we compare the three cases to assess TIC forcing. The results show that TICs cool the atmosphere, with the difference between two simulations (cloud/no clouds) reaching up to −2 K/day, leading to a decrease in temperature on the order of ~−4 KMonth−1. The energetics cycle indicates that the time-mean enthalpy generation term GM and baroclinic conversion dominate Arctic circulation. The GM acting on the available enthalpy reservoir (AM) increased by a maximum value of ~5 W·m−2 (58% on average) due to the effects of TICs, increasing in energy conversion. TICs also lead to average changes of 9% in time-mean available enthalpy and −5.9% in time-mean kinetic energy. Our work offers valuable insights into the Arctic winter atmosphere and provides the means to characterize clouds for radiative transfer calculations, to design measurement instruments, and to understand their climate feedback.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".