Problems Closing the Energy Balance over a Homogeneous Snow Cover during Midwinter
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Application of the energy balance approach to estimate snowmelt inherently presumes that the external energy fluxes can be measured or modeled with sufficient accuracy to reliably estimate the internal energy changes and melt rate. However, owing to difficulties in directly measuring the internal energy content of the snow during melt periods, the ability to close the energy balance is rarely quantified. To address this, all of the external energy balance terms (sensible and latent heat fluxes, shortwave and longwave radiation fluxes, and the ground heat flux) were directly measured and compared to changes of the energy content within an extensive, homogeneous, snowpack of a level field near Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada. The snow was observed to lose significant amounts of energy because of a persistent longwave radiation imbalance caused by low incoming fluxes during cold, clear-sky periods, while solar heating of the snow surface caused an increase in the outgoing fluxes. The sum of the measured turbulent heat fluxes, ground heat flux, and solar radiation fluxes were insufficient to offset these losses, however the snowpack temperatures were not observed to cool. It was concluded that an unmeasured exchange of sensible heat was occurring from the atmosphere to the snowpack. The exchange mechanism for this is not known but would appear to be consistent with the concept of a windless exchange as employed to close the energy balance in various snow models. The results suggest that caution should be exercised when using the energy balance method to determine changes in internal energy in cold snowpacks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".