MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283009657 · doi:10.5194/tc-16-2373-2022

Snowfall and snow accumulation during the MOSAiC winter and spring seasons

2022· article· en· W4283009657 on OpenAlexaff
David N. Wagner, Matthew D. Shupe, Christopher J. Cox, Ola G. Persson, Taneil Uttal, M. M. Frey, Amélie Kirchgaessner, Martin Schneebeli, Matthias Jaggi, Amy R. Macfarlane, Polona Itkin, Stefanie Arndt, Stefan Hendricks, Daniela Krampe, Marcel Nicolaus, Robert Ricker, Julia Regnery, Nikolai Kolabutin, Egor Shimanshuck, Marc Oggier, Ian Raphael, Julienne Strœve, Michael Lehning

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œcryosphere · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersGlobal Ocean Monitoring and Observing ProgramBiological and Environmental ResearchNatural Environment Research CouncilSwiss Polar InstituteNorges ForskningsrådAlfred Wegener Institute Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine ResearchSight Research UKNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftU.S. Department of EnergyEuropean CommissionSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungOffice of ScienceWSL-Institut für Schnee- und Lawinenforschung SLFNational Science Foundation
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceSnow linePrecipitationAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyTransectWind speedArcticGeologyMeteorologySnow coverGeographyOceanographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Data from the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition allowed us to investigate the temporal dynamics of snowfall, snow accumulation and erosion in great detail for almost the whole accumulation season (November 2019 to May 2020). We computed cumulative snow water equivalent (SWE) over the sea ice based on snow depth and density retrievals from a SnowMicroPen and approximately weekly measured snow depths along fixed transect paths. We used the derived SWE from the snow cover to compare with precipitation sensors installed during MOSAiC. The data were also compared with ERA5 reanalysis snowfall rates for the drift track. We found an accumulated snow mass of 38 mm SWE between the end of October 2019 and end of April 2020. The initial SWE over first-year ice relative to second-year ice increased from 50 % to 90 % by end of the investigation period. Further, we found that the Vaisala Present Weather Detector 22, an optical precipitation sensor, and installed on a railing on the top deck of research vessel Polarstern, was least affected by blowing snow and showed good agreements with SWE retrievals along the transect. On the contrary, the OTT Pluvio2 pluviometer and the OTT Parsivel2 laser disdrometer were largely affected by wind and blowing snow, leading to too high measured precipitation rates. These are largely reduced when eliminating drifting snow periods in the comparison. ERA5 reveals good timing of the snowfall events and good agreement with ground measurements with an overestimation tendency. Retrieved snowfall from the ship-based Ka-band ARM zenith radar shows good agreements with SWE of the snow cover and differences comparable to those of ERA5. Based on the results, we suggest the Ka-band radar-derived snowfall as an upper limit and the present weather detector on RV Polarstern as a lower limit of a cumulative snowfall range. Based on these findings, we suggest a cumulative snowfall of 72 to 107 mm and a precipitation mass loss of the snow cover due to erosion and sublimation as between 47 % and 68 %, for the time period between 31 October 2019 and 26 April 2020. Extending this period beyond available snow cover measurements, we suggest a cumulative snowfall of 98–114 mm.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations58
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œcryosphereSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207