the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Sensitivity of modeled snow grain size retrievals to solar geometry, snow particle asphericity, and snowpack impurities
Abstract. Snow grain size is an important metric to determine snow age and metamorphism, but it is difficult to measure. The effective grain size can be derived from spaceborne and airborne radiance measurements due to strong attenuation of near-infrared energy by ice. Consequently, a snow grain size inversion technique that uses hyperspectral radiances and exploits variations in the 1.03 μm ice absorption feature was previously developed for use with airborne imaging spectroscopy. Previous studies have since demonstrated the effectiveness of the technique, though there has yet to be a quantitative assessment of the retrieval sensitivity to snowpack impurities, ice particle shape, or solar geometry. In this study, we use the Snow, Ice, and Aerosol Radiative (SNICAR) model and a Monte Carlo photon tracking model to examine the sensitivity of snow grain size retrievals to changes in dust and black carbon content, anisotropic reflectance, changes in solar illumination angle (θ0), and scattering asymmetry parameter (g) associated with different particle shapes. Our results show that changes in these variables can produce large grain size errors, especially when the effective grain size exceeds 500 μm. Dust content of 1000 ppm induces errors exceeding 800 μm, with the highest biases associated with small particles. Aspherical ice particles and perturbed solar zenith angles produce maximum biases of ∼540 μm and ∼400 μm respectively, when spherical snow grains and θ0 = 60° are assumed in the generation of the retrieval calibration curve. Retrievals become highly sensitive to viewing angle when reflectance is anisotropic, with biases exceeding 1000 μm in extreme cases. Overall, we show that a more detailed understanding of snowpack state and solar geometry improves the precision when determining snow grain size through hyperspectral remote sensing.
-
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
(2698 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2698 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-266', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 May 2022
The task of this paper is to discuss uncertainties of the snow grain size retrieval algorithm proposed in the past with respect to the influence of several parameters such as the show grain shape, impurity content and solar zenith angle. The paper is well written and can be published as it stands.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-266-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zachary Fair, 11 Aug 2022
We thank the reviewer for taking time to assess the manuscript, and for their recommendation of publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-266-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zachary Fair, 11 Aug 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-266', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jul 2022
Review for manuscript:
Sensitivity of modeled snow grain size retrievals to solar geometry, snow particle asphericity, and snowpack impuritiesThis manuscript aims to present and quantify the impact of various variables on snow grain size retrievals. The authors adopted and tested the retrieval technique published earlier by Nolin and Dozier (2000) with different snow radiative transfer models (SNICAR and Monte Carlo). By perturbing the snow grain shape, solar incident angles, and concentration of light-absorbing impurities, the authors examined their corresponding impact on retrieved snow grain size. This manuscript is well organized and written. The experiments are reasonably designed with clear model descriptions. The reviewer has the following comments:
Section 2.1: The authors should consider adding more details or plots when introducing ND2000 techniques, specifically:Page 3, line 4: "leading to an increase in depth of the absorption feature": is the "depth" defined at the wavelength of 1.03 microns only? Or is it for a wavelength range?
Later in this paragraph: "Preliminary research by Nolin and Dozier (1993) demonstrated that a single band depth within the ice absorption feature could be used to derive snow grain size.". If "band" here is for at the wavelength of 1.03 microns only, consider using "channel"?
Page 3, line 5: Is "absorption feature" and "continuum
reflectance" the same concept here?
Page 3, line 8: "Nolin and Dozier (2000) accounted for the latter issue by scaling band depth relative to the continuum reflectance, which is linearly interpolated between 0.95 μm and 1.09 μm." Here, it seems "continuum reflectance" is just a linear line between 0.95 μm and 1.09 μm?
Page 4, line 7: "Band area is computed from an observation of spectral reflectance and best matched to a band area within a lookup table or
to a calibration curve of modeled band areas." Here, it would be helpful to explain what does calibration curve looks like? For example, is band area a function of grain size?ND2000 technique was well-documented in the original paper, and readers will likely be able to understand these concepts as they continue reading this paper. But before the authors dive into bias analyses, plots illustrating "continuum reflectance" and "calibration curve" (like Figures 10 and 11) would be helpful here.
Section 2.2.2
Page 5, line 5, "We assumed direct sunlight for all simulations." So all the downwelling flux on snow surface is direct solar flux? What about cloudy sky/diffuse light? Is this due to the limitation of the DM2000 technique? Would the impact of all variables on retrieved grain size be smaller/larger under a cloudy sky?Figure 3: Since SNICAR is a two-stream model, it is no surprise the reflectances agree pretty well for the angle of 60 degrees. Out of curiosity, what about the other solar incident angles?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-266-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zachary Fair, 11 Aug 2022
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-266', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 May 2022
The task of this paper is to discuss uncertainties of the snow grain size retrieval algorithm proposed in the past with respect to the influence of several parameters such as the show grain shape, impurity content and solar zenith angle. The paper is well written and can be published as it stands.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-266-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zachary Fair, 11 Aug 2022
We thank the reviewer for taking time to assess the manuscript, and for their recommendation of publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-266-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Zachary Fair, 11 Aug 2022
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-266', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Jul 2022
Review for manuscript:
Sensitivity of modeled snow grain size retrievals to solar geometry, snow particle asphericity, and snowpack impuritiesThis manuscript aims to present and quantify the impact of various variables on snow grain size retrievals. The authors adopted and tested the retrieval technique published earlier by Nolin and Dozier (2000) with different snow radiative transfer models (SNICAR and Monte Carlo). By perturbing the snow grain shape, solar incident angles, and concentration of light-absorbing impurities, the authors examined their corresponding impact on retrieved snow grain size. This manuscript is well organized and written. The experiments are reasonably designed with clear model descriptions. The reviewer has the following comments:
Section 2.1: The authors should consider adding more details or plots when introducing ND2000 techniques, specifically:Page 3, line 4: "leading to an increase in depth of the absorption feature": is the "depth" defined at the wavelength of 1.03 microns only? Or is it for a wavelength range?
Later in this paragraph: "Preliminary research by Nolin and Dozier (1993) demonstrated that a single band depth within the ice absorption feature could be used to derive snow grain size.". If "band" here is for at the wavelength of 1.03 microns only, consider using "channel"?
Page 3, line 5: Is "absorption feature" and "continuum
reflectance" the same concept here?
Page 3, line 8: "Nolin and Dozier (2000) accounted for the latter issue by scaling band depth relative to the continuum reflectance, which is linearly interpolated between 0.95 μm and 1.09 μm." Here, it seems "continuum reflectance" is just a linear line between 0.95 μm and 1.09 μm?
Page 4, line 7: "Band area is computed from an observation of spectral reflectance and best matched to a band area within a lookup table or
to a calibration curve of modeled band areas." Here, it would be helpful to explain what does calibration curve looks like? For example, is band area a function of grain size?ND2000 technique was well-documented in the original paper, and readers will likely be able to understand these concepts as they continue reading this paper. But before the authors dive into bias analyses, plots illustrating "continuum reflectance" and "calibration curve" (like Figures 10 and 11) would be helpful here.
Section 2.2.2
Page 5, line 5, "We assumed direct sunlight for all simulations." So all the downwelling flux on snow surface is direct solar flux? What about cloudy sky/diffuse light? Is this due to the limitation of the DM2000 technique? Would the impact of all variables on retrieved grain size be smaller/larger under a cloudy sky?Figure 3: Since SNICAR is a two-stream model, it is no surprise the reflectances agree pretty well for the angle of 60 degrees. Out of curiosity, what about the other solar incident angles?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-266-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Zachary Fair, 11 Aug 2022
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
219 | 85 | 13 | 317 | 5 | 7 |
- HTML: 219
- PDF: 85
- XML: 13
- Total: 317
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Mark Flanner
Adam Schneider
S. McKenzie Skiles
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(2698 KB) - Metadata XML