On the formulation of snow thermal conductivity in large‐scale sea ice models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An assessment of the performance of a state‐of‐the‐art large‐scale coupled sea ice‐ocean model, including a new snow multilayer thermodynamic scheme, is performed. Four 29 year long simulations are compared against each other and against sea ice thickness and extent observations. Each simulation uses a separate parameterization for snow thermophysical properties. The first simulation uses a constant thermal conductivity and prescribed density profiles. The second and third parameterizations use typical power‐law relationships linking thermal conductivity directly to density (prescribed as in the first simulation). The fourth parameterization is newly developed and consists of a set of two linear equations relating the snow thermal conductivity and density to the mean seasonal wind speed. Results show that simulation 1 leads to a significant overestimation of the sea ice thickness due to overestimated thermal conductivity, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. Parameterizations 2 and 4 lead to a realistic simulation of the Arctic sea ice mean state. Simulation 3 results in the underestimation of the sea ice basal growth in both hemispheres, but is partly compensated by lateral growth and snow ice formation in the Southern Hemisphere. Finally, parameterization 4 improves the simulated Snow Depth Distributions by including snow packing by wind, and shows potential for being used in future works. The intercomparison of all simulations suggests that the sea ice model is more sensitive to the snow representation in the Arctic than it is in the Southern Ocean, where the sea ice thickness is not driven by temperature profiles in the snow.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 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".