An observation‐based formulation of snow cover fraction and its evaluation over large North American river basins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snow cover strongly interacts with climate through snow albedo feedbacks. However, global climate models still are not adequate in representing snow cover fraction (SCF), i.e., the fraction of a model grid cell covered by snow. Through an analysis of the advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) derived SCF and the Canadian Meteorological Centre (CMC) gridded snow depth and snow water equivalent (SWE), we found that the SCF–snow depth relationship varies with seasons, which may be approximated by variations in snow density. We then added snow density to an existing SCF formulation to reflect the variations in the SCF–snow depth relationship with seasons. The reconstructed SCF with the gridded snow depth and SWE by employing this snow density–dependent SCF formulation agrees better with the AVHRR‐derived SCF than other formulations. The default SCF formulation in the National Center for Atmospheric Research community land model (CLM), driven by observed near‐surface meteorological forcings, simulates a smaller SCF and a shallower snow depth than observations. Implementation of the new SCF formulation into the NCAR CLM greatly improves the simulations of SCF, snow depth, and SWE in most North American (NA) river basins. The new SCF formulation increases SCF by 20–40%, decreases net solar radiation by up to 20 W m−2, and decreases surface temperature by up to 4 K in most midlatitude regions in winter and at high latitudes in spring. The new scheme reproduces the observed SCF, snow depth, and SWE in terms of interannual variability and interbasin variability in most NA river basins except for the mountainous Columbia and Colorado River basins. It produces SCF trends similar to that of AVHRR. However, it produces greater decreasing trends in ablation seasons and smaller increasing trends in accumulation seasons than those of the CMC snow depth and SWE.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".