Atmospheric form drag coefficients over Arctic sea ice using remotely sensed ice topography data, spring 2009–2015
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sea ice topography significantly impacts turbulent energy/momentum exchange, e.g., atmospheric (wind) drag, over Arctic sea ice. Unfortunately, observational estimates of this contribution to atmospheric drag variability are spatially and temporally limited. Here we present new estimates of the neutral atmospheric form drag coefficient over Arctic sea ice in early spring, using high‐resolution Airborne Topographic Mapper elevation data from NASA's Operation IceBridge mission. We utilize a new three‐dimensional ice topography data set and combine this with an existing parameterization scheme linking surface feature height and spacing to form drag. To be consistent with previous studies investigating form drag, we compare these results with those produced using a new linear profiling topography data set. The form drag coefficient from surface feature variability shows lower values (<0.5–1 ×10−3) in the Beaufort/Chukchi Seas, compared with higher values (>0.5–1 ×10−3) in the more deformed ice regimes of the Central Arctic (north of Greenland and the Canadian Archipelago), which increase with coastline proximity. The results show moderate interannual variability, including a strong increase in the form drag coefficient from 2013 to 2014/2015 north of the Canadian Archipelago. The form drag coefficient estimates are extrapolated across the Arctic with Advanced Scatterometer satellite radar backscatter data, further highlighting the regional/interannual drag coefficient variability. Finally, we combine the results with existing parameterizations of form drag from floe edges (a function of ice concentration) and skin drag to produce, to our knowledge, the first pan‐Arctic estimates of the total neutral atmospheric drag coefficient (in early spring) from 2009 to 2015.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".