Impact of water vapor diffusion and latent heat on the effective thermal conductivity of snow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heat transport in snowpacks is understood to occur through the two processes of heat conduction and latent heat transport carried by water vapor, which are generally treated as decoupled from one another. This paper investigates the coupling between both these processes in snow, with an emphasis on the impacts of the kinetics of the sublimation and deposition of water vapor onto ice. In the case when kinetics is fast, latent heat exchanges at ice surfaces modify their temperature and therefore the thermal gradient within ice crystals and the heat conduction through the entire microstructure. Furthermore, in this case, the effective thermal conductivity of snow can be expressed by a purely conductive term complemented by a term directly proportional to the effective diffusion coefficient of water vapor in snow, which illustrates the inextricable coupling between heat conduction and water vapor transport. Numerical simulations on measured three-dimensional snow microstructures reveal that the effective thermal conductivity of snow can be significantly larger, by up to about 50 % for low-density snow, than if water vapor transport is neglected. A comparison of our numerical simulations with literature data suggests that the fast kinetics hypothesis could be a reasonable assumption for modeling heat and mass transport in snow. Lastly, we demonstrate that under the fast kinetics hypothesis the effective diffusion coefficient of water vapor is related to the effective thermal conductivity by a simple linear relationship. Under such a condition, the effective diffusion coefficient of water vapor is expected to lie in the narrow 100 % to about 80 % range of the value of the diffusion coefficient of water vapor in air for most seasonal snows. This may greatly facilitate the parameterization of water vapor diffusion of snow in 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 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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".