High-resolution Modeling of Glacier Surface Energy Balance and Melt in High-Arctic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian high-Arctic hosts the largest glacierized area outside the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and is disproportionately affected by climate change when compared to lower latitudes due to Arctic amplification. Improving our understanding of the response of glaciers in the Canadian high-Arctic to climate change will improve models predicting future changes in ocean circulation and ecosystem structure and function. Despite the importance of these glaciers on global and local scales, long-term glacier monitoring is limited to five glaciers spanning a ~106,000 km2 area and there is one weather station for every ~2,953 km2. Glacier melt models and remote sensing are relied upon to fill this gap and sacrifice resolution to conserve computing time. The coarse resolution of existing models is insufficient to resolve processes occurring on smaller (sub-500 m and hourly) space and timescales This research aims to present and evaluate a high spatial and temporal resolution, surface energy balance glacier melt model in the Canadian high-Arctic which improves upon existing models by offering hourly rather than daily melt rates and on a non-uniform grid with down to 32 m node spacing rather than 500 m spacing. We rely upon bias-adjusted ERA5 weather data and Landsat-8 reflectance to force the model. Bias-adjustment reduced the mean, regional summertime temperature bias from -15 °C to +2 °C, enabling the determination of melt onset based on temperature exceeding 0 °C, although melt onset determined this way may be too soon due to the positive summer temperature bias. Uncertainty due to temperature error constitutes ~50% of the modeled melt uncertainty related to ERA5 and Landsat-8 forcing datasets and the rest is dominated by errors in the ERA5 and Landsat-8 net radiation components. Overall, the model performed well on annual timescales with a mean glacier melt percent uncertainty of 24 % on annual timescales, however, percent uncertainty averaged 84 % on hourly timescales. The presented glacier melt model may offer a solution to deriving high-resolution melt in undermonitored regions of the Canadian high-Arctic.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".