A one-dimensional model intercomparison study of thermal regime of a shallow, turbid midlatitude lake
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Results of a lake model intercomparison study conducted within the framework of Lake Model Intercomparison Project are presented. The investigated lake was Großer Kossenblatter See (Germany) as a representative of shallow, (2 m mean depth) turbid midlatitude lakes. Meteorological measurements, including turbulent fluxes and water temperature, were carried out by the Lindenberg Meteorological Observatory of the German Meteorological Service (Deutscher Wetterdienst, DWD). Eight lake models of different complexity were run, forced by identical meteorological variables and model parameters unified as far as possible given different formulations of processes. All models generally captured diurnal and seasonal variability of lake surface temperature reasonably well. However, some models were incapable of realistically reproducing temperature stratification in summer. Total heat turbulent fluxes, computed by the surface flux schemes of the compared lake models, deviated on average from those measured by eddy covariance by 17–28 W m−2. There are a number of possible reasons for these deviations, and the conclusion is drawn that underestimation of real fluxes by the eddy covariance technique is the most probable reason. It is supported by the fact that the eddy covariance fluxes do not allow to close the heat balance of the water column, the residual for the whole period considered being ≈–28 W m−2. The effect of heat flux to bottom sediments can become significant for bottom temperatures. It also has profound influence on the surface temperatures in autumn due to convective mixing but not in summer when the lake stratification is stable. Thus, neglecting sediments shifts the summer–autumn temperature difference in models lacking explicit treatment of sediments considerably. As a practical recommendation based on results of the present study, we also infer that in order to realistically represent lakes in numerical weather prediction and climate models, it is advisable to use depth-resolving turbulence models (or equivalent) in favor of models with a completely mixed temperature profile.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".