MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Using CloudSat snowfall rate observations to constrain and characterize the uncertainties of Arctic snow-on-sea-ice

2020· article· en· W3108147510 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Cabaj, Paul J. Kushner, Alek Petty, Stephen Howell, Christopher G. Fletcher

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WaterlooEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCanadian Association for Co-operative Education
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpan (engineering)SnowSea iceMeteorologyGeologyOceanographyPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow on Arctic sea ice plays multiple—and sometimes contrasting—roles in several feedbacks between sea ice and the global climate system. For example, the presence of snow on sea ice may mitigate sea ice melt by increasing the sea ice albedo and enhancing the ice-albedo feedback. Conversely, snow can inhibit sea ice growth by insulating the ice from the atmosphere during the sea ice growth season. In addition to its contribution to sea ice feedbacks, snow on sea ice also poses a challenge for sea ice observations. In particular, snow contributes to uncertainties in retrievals of sea ice thickness from satellite altimetry measurements, such as those from ICESat-2. Snow-on-sea-ice models can produce basin-wide snow depth estimates, but these models require snowfall input from reanalysis products. In-situ snowfall measurements are absent over most of the Arctic Ocean, so it can be difficult to determine which reanalysis snowfall product is best suited to be used as input for a snow-on-sea-ice model. In the absence of in-situ snowfall rate measurements, measurements from satellite instruments can be used to quantify snowfall over the Arctic Ocean. The CloudSat satellite, which is equipped with a 94 GHz Cloud Profiling Radar instrument, measures vertical radar reflectivity profiles from which snowfall rates can be retrieved. This instrument provides the most extensive high-latitude snowfall rate observation dataset currently available. CloudSat’s near-polar orbit enables it to make measurements at latitudes up to 82°N, with a 16-day repeat cycle, over the time period from 2006-2016. We present a calibration of reanalysis snowfall to CloudSat observations over the Arctic Ocean, which we then apply to reanalysis snowfall input for the NASA Eulerian Snow On Sea Ice Model (NESOSIM). This calibration reduces the spread in snow depths produced by NESOSIM when different reanalysis inputs are used. In light of this calibration, we revise the NESOSIM parametrizations of wind-driven snow processes, and we characterize the uncertainties in NESOSIM-generated snow depths resulting from uncertainties in snowfall input. We then extend this analysis further to estimate the resulting uncertainties in sea ice thickness retrieved from ICESat-2 when snow depth estimates from NESOSIM are used as input for the retrieval.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.076
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.165 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→