The Role of Ice Cover in Heavy Lake-Effect Snowstorms over the Great Lakes Basin as Simulated by RegCM4
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A 20-km regional climate model, the Abdus Salam International Centre for Theoretical Physics Regional Climate Model version 4 (ICTP RegCM4), is employed to investigate heavy lake-effect snowfall (HLES) over the Great Lakes Basin and the role of ice cover in regulating these events. When coupled to a lake model and driven with atmospheric reanalysis data between 1976 and 2002, RegCM4 reproduces the major characteristics of HLES. The influence of lake ice cover on HLES is investigated through 10 case studies (2 per Great Lake), in which a simulated heavy lake-effect event is compared with a companion simulation having 100% ice cover imposed on one or all of the Great Lakes. These experiments quantify the impact of ice cover on downstream snowfall and demonstrate that Lake Superior has the strongest, most widespread influence on heavy snowfall and Lake Ontario the least. Ice cover strongly affects a wide range of atmospheric variables above and downstream of lakes during HLES, including snowfall, surface energy fluxes, wind speed, temperature, moisture, clouds, and air pressure. Averaged among the 10 events, complete ice coverage causes major reductions in lake-effect snowfall (>80%) and turbulent heat fluxes over the lakes (>90%), less low cloudiness, lower temperatures, and higher air pressure. Another important consequence is a consistent weakening (30%–40%) of lower-tropospheric winds over the lakes when completely frozen. This momentum reduction further decreases over-lake evaporation and weakens downstream wind convergence, thus mitigating lake-effect snowfall. This finding suggests a secondary, dynamical mechanism by which ice cover affects downstream snowfall during HLES events, in addition to the more widely recognized thermodynamic influence.
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 | 0.002 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".