MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2895586530 · doi:10.3389/feart.2018.00144

The Importance of Turbulent Fluxes in the Surface Energy Balance of a Debris-Covered Glacier in the Himalayas

2018· article· en· W2895586530 on OpenAlexaff
Jakob Steiner, Maxime Litt, Emmy E. Stigter, J. M. Shea, Marc F. P. Bierkens, Walter W. Immerzeel

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Earth Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersEuropean Research CouncilNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekEuropean CommissionInternational Centre for Integrated Mountain Development
KeywordsEddy covarianceLatent heatSensible heatGlacierEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesTurbulenceEnergy balanceDebrisNoonHeat fluxFlux (metallurgy)Radiative fluxRadiative transferClimatologyMeteorologyGeologyHeat transferMechanicsGeographyPhysicsMaterials scienceGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Surface energy balance models are common tools to estimate melt rates of debris-covered glaciers. In the Himalayas, radiative fluxes are occasionally measured, but very limited observations of turbulent fluxes on debris-covered tongues exist to date. We present measurements collected in autumn 2016 from the 26$^{th}$ of September to the 12$^{th}$ of October from an eddy correlation (EC) tower installed on the debris-covered Lirung Glacier in Nepal during the transition between monsoon and post-monsoon. Our observations suggest that surface energy losses through turbulent fluxes reduce the positive net radiative fluxes during daylight hours between 10 and 100\%, and even lead to a net negative surface energy balance after noon. During clear days, turbulent flux losses increase to over 250 W m$^{-2}$ mainly due to high sensible heat fluxes. During overcast days the latent heat flux dominates the turbulent losses and together they reach just above 100 W m$^{-2}$. Subsequently, we validate the performance of three bulk approaches in reproducing the EC observations. Large differences exist between the approaches, and accurate estimates of surface temperature, wind speed, and surface roughness are necessary for their performance to be reasonable. Moreover, the tested bulk approaches generally overestimate turbulent latent heat fluxes by a factor 3 on clear days, because the debris-covered surface dries out rapidly, while the bulk equations assume surface saturation. Improvements to bulk surface energy models should therefore include the drying process of the surface. A sensitivity analysis suggests that, in order to be useful in distributed melt models, an accurate extrapolation of wind speed, surface temperature and surface roughness in space is a prerequisite. \textcolor{red}{By applying the best performing bulk model over a complete melt period, we show that turbulent fluxes to reduce the available energy for melt at the debris surface by 17$\%$ even at very low wind speeds.} Overall, we conclude that turbulent fluxes play an essential role in the surface energy balance of debris-covered glaciers and that it is essential to include them in melt models.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations82
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Earth ScienceSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207