the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of snow processes over the Western United States in E3SM land model
Abstract. Seasonal snow has crucial impacts on climate, ecosystems and humans, but it is vulnerable to global warming. The land component (ELM) of the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), mechanistically simulates snow processes from accumulation, canopy interception, compaction, snow aging to melt. Although high-quality field measurements, remote sensing snow products and data assimilation products with high spatio-temporal resolution are available, there has been no systematic evaluation of the snow properties and phenology in ELM. This study comprehensively evaluates ELM snow simulations over the western United States at 0.125° resolution during 2001–2019 using the Snow Telemetry (SNOTEL) in situ networks, MODIS remote sensing products (i.e., MCD43 surface albedo product, the spatially and temporally complete (STC) Snow-Covered Area and Grain Size (MODSCAG) and MODIS Dust and Radiative Forcing in Snow (MODDRFS) products (STC-MODSCAG/STC-MODDRFS), and the Snow Property Inversion from Remote Sensing (SPIReS) product) and two data assimilation products of snow water equivalent and snow depth (i.e., University of Arizona (UA) and SNOw Data Assimilation System (SNODAS)). Overall the ELM simulations are consistent with the benchmarking datasets and reproduce the spatio-temporal patterns, interannual variability and elevation gradients for different snow properties including snow cover fraction (fsno), surface albedo (𝛼sur) over snow cover regions, snow water equivalent (SWE) and snow depth (Dsno). However, there are large biases of fsno with dense forest cover and 𝛼sur in the Rocky Mountains and Sierra Nevada in winter, compared to the MODIS products. There are large discrepancies of snow albedo, snow grain size and light-absorbing particles induced snow albedo reduction between ELM and the MODIS products, attributed to uncertainties in the aerosol forcing data, snow aging processes in ELM, and remote sensing retrievals. Against UA and SNODAS, ELM has a mean bias of -20.7 mm (-35.9 %) and -20.4 mm (-35.5 %), respectively for spring, and -13.8 mm (-27.8 %) and -10.2 mm (-22.2 %), respectively for winter. ELM shows a relatively high correlation with SNOTEL SWE, with mean correlation coefficients of 0.69, but negative mean biases of -122.7 mm, respectively. Compared to the snow phenology of STC-MODSCAG and SPIReS, ELM shows delayed snow accumulation onset date by 17.3 and 12.4 days, earlier snow end date by 35.5 and 26.8 days, and shorter snow duration by 52.9 and 39.5 days. This study underscores the need for diagnosing model biases and improving ELM representations of snow properties and snow phenology in mountainous areas for more credible simulation and future projection of mountain snowpack.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(4151 KB)
-
Supplement
(2214 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4151 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2214 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1097', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Nov 2022
General comments:
The manuscript by Hao et al. (egusphere-2022-1097) evaluated the performance of E3SM land model in simulating a number of snow parameters, e.g., snow cover fraction, surface albedo, snow water equivalent and snow depth, and snow phenology using in situ, remote sensing, and reanalysis data. The paper presented a comprehensive model evaluation and thoroughly discussed the sources of the model uncertainties and biases. I think the results of the paper are useful for the related researchers to understand the capacity and drawbacks of E3SM land model in snow simulations, and to get insights of how to further improve the model.
Specific comments:
- I would suggest revising the title of the paper. As this paper mainly evaluated the performance of the E3SM land model in simulating snow processes against a number of observation datasets. Basically, this is not an evaluation of snow processes.
- L208-209. “The snow accumulation and snowmelt seasons are defined as the periods from September to January and from February to August, respectively.” However, as I know, many regions in the Northern Hemisphere have the peak SWE in February. Please discuss more about the rationality of this definition in snow season.
- Fig. 3. I notice that the temporal correlations between the simulated and observed snow fractions in winter are obviously lower than those in spring. Please explain the reason. Are they caused by different parameterizations of the model for the two seasons? Normally, it is more challenging for the snow models to simulate the complex snow processes during the melt season. Thus, the results in Fig. 3 are confusing. Pleas add more discussions.
- Table 2. Some simulated snow variables showed small correlations with some observations (R=-0.2~0.2) but obviously higher correlations with other observations (R>0.5). Please explain the reason.
Technical corrections:
- L264-265. “The regional average fsno is 0.41 and 0.15, respectively for spring and winter.” However, Fig. 3 shows winter has higher fsno than spring. Please recheck whether it is a typo.
- Fig. 3. I would prefer using blue for areas having more snow and using red for snow-rare areas in figures.
- Figure captions. I would suggest giving the full names of the variables in the captions, instead of abbreviations.
- Table 2. It is likely the typesetting of Table 2 is problematic. It is not easy to match the products with the corresponding error metrics. Please improve.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1097-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dalei Hao, 16 Jan 2023
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Dalei Hao, 16 Jan 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1097', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Dec 2022
This manuscript evaluated the performance of ELM in simulating snow-related properties across the Western United States. The authors conducted a 50-year offline regional land simulation and evaluated the modeled snow properties against various observational and reanalysis datasets. The experiment is well-designed, and the discussions are well-presented. Such comprehensive model evaluations are valuable for further studies on improving climate simulations, especially for studies based on E3SM.
General comments:
- The authors should consider revising the title of this manuscript. Snow processes on land imply snow metamorphism, i.e., how snow changes over time. This manuscript focuses more on the accuracy of ELM-simulated snow properties rather than evaluating the ELM snow metamorphism schemes.
- The authors gathered a lot of observational data to evaluate ELM model simulations. They presented many well-organized figures, including model-minus-observation and their temporal correlations for each snow property. Yet, they need to add more discussions on how these properties interact. For example, is the bias in snow grain size contributing to snow albedo and further influencing SWE and snow-covered fraction? Such discussions are crucial and will help the users to understand the snow simulations in ELM.
- Lastly, the authors conducted an offline ELM experiment, presumably for computational efficiency. Would the results differ with coupled simulations considering various snow-related feedbacks?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1097-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Dalei Hao, 16 Jan 2023
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Dalei Hao, 16 Jan 2023
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1097', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Nov 2022
General comments:
The manuscript by Hao et al. (egusphere-2022-1097) evaluated the performance of E3SM land model in simulating a number of snow parameters, e.g., snow cover fraction, surface albedo, snow water equivalent and snow depth, and snow phenology using in situ, remote sensing, and reanalysis data. The paper presented a comprehensive model evaluation and thoroughly discussed the sources of the model uncertainties and biases. I think the results of the paper are useful for the related researchers to understand the capacity and drawbacks of E3SM land model in snow simulations, and to get insights of how to further improve the model.
Specific comments:
- I would suggest revising the title of the paper. As this paper mainly evaluated the performance of the E3SM land model in simulating snow processes against a number of observation datasets. Basically, this is not an evaluation of snow processes.
- L208-209. “The snow accumulation and snowmelt seasons are defined as the periods from September to January and from February to August, respectively.” However, as I know, many regions in the Northern Hemisphere have the peak SWE in February. Please discuss more about the rationality of this definition in snow season.
- Fig. 3. I notice that the temporal correlations between the simulated and observed snow fractions in winter are obviously lower than those in spring. Please explain the reason. Are they caused by different parameterizations of the model for the two seasons? Normally, it is more challenging for the snow models to simulate the complex snow processes during the melt season. Thus, the results in Fig. 3 are confusing. Pleas add more discussions.
- Table 2. Some simulated snow variables showed small correlations with some observations (R=-0.2~0.2) but obviously higher correlations with other observations (R>0.5). Please explain the reason.
Technical corrections:
- L264-265. “The regional average fsno is 0.41 and 0.15, respectively for spring and winter.” However, Fig. 3 shows winter has higher fsno than spring. Please recheck whether it is a typo.
- Fig. 3. I would prefer using blue for areas having more snow and using red for snow-rare areas in figures.
- Figure captions. I would suggest giving the full names of the variables in the captions, instead of abbreviations.
- Table 2. It is likely the typesetting of Table 2 is problematic. It is not easy to match the products with the corresponding error metrics. Please improve.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1097-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Dalei Hao, 16 Jan 2023
- AC3: 'Reply on RC1', Dalei Hao, 16 Jan 2023
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1097', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Dec 2022
This manuscript evaluated the performance of ELM in simulating snow-related properties across the Western United States. The authors conducted a 50-year offline regional land simulation and evaluated the modeled snow properties against various observational and reanalysis datasets. The experiment is well-designed, and the discussions are well-presented. Such comprehensive model evaluations are valuable for further studies on improving climate simulations, especially for studies based on E3SM.
General comments:
- The authors should consider revising the title of this manuscript. Snow processes on land imply snow metamorphism, i.e., how snow changes over time. This manuscript focuses more on the accuracy of ELM-simulated snow properties rather than evaluating the ELM snow metamorphism schemes.
- The authors gathered a lot of observational data to evaluate ELM model simulations. They presented many well-organized figures, including model-minus-observation and their temporal correlations for each snow property. Yet, they need to add more discussions on how these properties interact. For example, is the bias in snow grain size contributing to snow albedo and further influencing SWE and snow-covered fraction? Such discussions are crucial and will help the users to understand the snow simulations in ELM.
- Lastly, the authors conducted an offline ELM experiment, presumably for computational efficiency. Would the results differ with coupled simulations considering various snow-related feedbacks?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1097-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Dalei Hao, 16 Jan 2023
- AC4: 'Reply on RC2', Dalei Hao, 16 Jan 2023
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Model code and software
E3SM: ELM-SNOW Dalei Hao https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6324131
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
402 | 158 | 17 | 577 | 35 | 2 | 5 |
- HTML: 402
- PDF: 158
- XML: 17
- Total: 577
- Supplement: 35
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Gautam Bisht
Karl Rittger
Timbo Stillinger
Edward Bair
L. Ruby Leung
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(4151 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2214 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper