1998
DOI: 10.3189/1998aog26-1-125-130
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differences in compaction behavior of three climate classes of snow

Abstract: In a recent paper (Sturm and others, 1995), a global seasonal snow-cover classification system was developed with each class defined by snow properties like grain-size and type. Here, characteristic bulk density vs time curves are assigned to three classes using snow-course data from Alaskan and Canadian sites. Within each class, curves have similar slopes and intercepts but between classes they are different. The relationship between slope, intercept and snow rheology has been investigated using a finite-diff… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, the relatively low density of the snow during 2001-02 can be explained by the complete absence of flooding and the retention of larger amounts of low-density depth hoar than in those winters when flooding occurred and removed some depth hoar from the snow cover. The snow density-time curves at MST Pond (Figure 2a-f) have slopes and intercepts similar to those reported for snow on land in this region (Sturm and Holmgren, 1998). This suggests, for the moment, that the compaction of snow on lake ice is determined by the same factors as for snow on land, i.e.…”
Section: Mst Pond Poker Flatsupporting
confidence: 79%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, the relatively low density of the snow during 2001-02 can be explained by the complete absence of flooding and the retention of larger amounts of low-density depth hoar than in those winters when flooding occurred and removed some depth hoar from the snow cover. The snow density-time curves at MST Pond (Figure 2a-f) have slopes and intercepts similar to those reported for snow on land in this region (Sturm and Holmgren, 1998). This suggests, for the moment, that the compaction of snow on lake ice is determined by the same factors as for snow on land, i.e.…”
Section: Mst Pond Poker Flatsupporting
confidence: 79%
“…Although occasional wind erosion occurs, none of the sites displayed any evidence of wind slab, which, coupled with temperature-gradient metamorphism and depth hoar formation meant that, over the course of the six winters, all density values were low (relative to those at the ALISON locations; see next section), ranging from 70 kg m 3 to 250 kg m 3 (Figure 2a-f), which are typical for this region (Sturm and Holmgren, 1998). Moderate differences in the range of density values each winter can be explained by variations in the frequency and magnitude of precipitation events and by the occurrence of flooding and snow ice formation.…”
Section: Mst Pond Poker Flatmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The snow density, ρ snow , due to metamorphosis is computed using Sturm and Holmgren (1998), that is,…”
Section: The Snow and Sea Ice Thermodynamic And Mass Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Different grain and bond characteristics can lead to larger differences in snow compaction than different loads and load histories (Sturm and Holmgren, 1998). Several field observations confirm large differences in viscosity between different snow types at equal density, as rounded well-sintered snow settles faster than depth hoar (Kojima, 1967; Armstrong, 1980; Shapiro and others, 1997; Sturm and Benson, 1997; Sturm and Holmgren, 1998). There is clear evidence from the field that the snow microstructure affects viscosity, but experimental data under controlled conditions are lacking, making modeling difficult.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%