Lower boundary conditions in Land Surface Models. Effects on the permafrost and the carbon pools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Earth System Models (ESMs) use bottom boundaries for their land surface model components which are shallower than the depth reached by surface temperature changes in the centennial time scale associated with recent climate change. Shallow bottom boundaries reflect energy to the surface, which along with the lack of geothermal heat flux in current land surface models, alter the surface energy balance and therefore affect some feedback processes between the ground surface and the atmosphere, such as permafrost and soil carbon stability. To evaluate these impacts, we modified the subsurface model in the Community Land Model version 4.5 (CLM4.5) by setting a non-zero crustal heat flux bottom boundary condition and by increasing the depth of the lower boundary by 300 m. The modified and original land models were run during the period 1901–2005 under the historical forcing and between 2005–2300 under two future scenarios of moderate (RCP 4.5) and high (RCP 8.5) emissions. Increasing the thickness of the subsurface by 300 m increases the heat stored in the subsurface by 72 ZJ (1 ZJ = 1021 J) by year 2300 for the RCP 4.5 scenario and 201 ZJ for the RCP 8.5 scenario (respective increases of 260 % and 217 % relative to the shallow model), reduces the loss of near-surface permafrost between 1901 and 2300 by 1.6 %–1.9 %, and reduces the loss of soil carbon by 1.6 %–3.6 %. Each increase of 0.02 W m−2 of the crustal heat flux increases the temperature at the soil-bedrock frontier by 0.4 ± 0.01 K, which decreases near-surface permafrost area slightly (0.3–0.8 %), but reduces the loss of soil carbon by as much as 1.1 %–5.6 % for the two scenarios.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".