MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4322005499 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu23-6903

Winter Warm Spells and snowpack ablation in western North America

2023· preprint· en· W4322005499 on OpenAlexaff
Lucía Scaff, Sebastian A. Krogh, K. N. Musselman, A. A. Harpold, Mario Lillo‐Saavedra, Ricardo Oyarzún, Yanping Li, Roy Rassmusen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowpackSnowmeltSnowEnvironmental scienceClimatologyAblationAtmospheric sciencesClimate changeWeather Research and Forecasting ModelMeteorologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Winter warm spells (WWS) are extreme temperature anomalies that might impact the snowpack. WWS amplify snowmelt and sublimation in mountain regions with uncertain consequences to timing and volume of water resources. Most studies focus on the spring season when snowmelt rates and streamflow response are high. However, winter snowmelt events are important in places where the snowpack and air temperatures are closer to the freezing point during winter, and thus it will become important in other regions in a warmer climate.This study aims to understand the effect of WWS on snowpack ablation patterns in the mountainous western North America and how they might change under a warmer climate. For this, we use two convection permitting regional climate model simulations to represent historical (2001-2013) and future atmospheric and the surface conditions. The future simulation is performed with a Pseudo Global Warming approach for a high emission scenario (RCP8.5). We verify WWS using gridded maximum daily temperature observation, and winter ablation using snow pillows. Then we characterize WWS and relate them to snowpack ablation.Although days with ablation during WWS represent a small fraction (8.3%, 0.6 days on average), 55% of total ablation occurs during WWS over regions with significant snowpack (mean peak snow water equivalent over 150 mm). Consistently, a larger ablation rate (53%) is found during WWS than non-WWS events. Total ablation during WWS increases about 157% in a warmer climate; however, the extreme ablation (99th percentile) rates show slight decrease (5%). Classifying the domain based on its humidity and temperature, we found that ablation rates during WWS in humid regions are larger in a warmer climate than those of the dry regions, which is explained by the differences in the energy balance and the snowpack cold content. WWS predominantly drive snowmelt (93.8%) rather than sublimation (6.2%), which has relevance to water resources such as flood risk, soil moisture, and streamflow response. Furthermore, the median snowmelt rate during WWS found to increase in response to warming by 179% compared to the median sublimation rate (125%). This study provides a comprehensive description of the impact of extreme temperature events and a warmer climate over our changing snowpack. We acknowledge financial support by Centro CRHIAM Project ANID/FONDAP/15130015, and the Anillo project ACT-210080.

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 score0.172
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→