Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2543
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2543
20 Nov 2023
 | 20 Nov 2023

Reanalyzing the spatial representativeness of snow depth at automated monitoring stations using airborne Lidar data

Jordan N. Herbert, Mark S. Raleigh, and Eric E. Small

Abstract. Automated snow station networks provide critical hydrologic data. Whether point observations represent snowpack at larger areas is an enduring question. Leveraging the recent proliferation of airborne Lidar snow depth data, we revisit the question of snow station representativeness at multiple scales surrounding 111 stations in Colorado and California (U.S.A.) from 2021–2023 (n= 476 total samples). In about 50 % of cases, station depths were at least 10 cm higher than areal-mean snow depth (from Lidar) at 0.5 to 4 km scales. The nearest 50 m Lidar pixels had lower bias and were more often representative than coincident stations. The closest 3 m Lidar pixel often agreed (within 10 cm) with station snow depth, suggesting differences between station snow depth and the nearest 50 m Lidar pixel result from highly localized conditions, not the measurement method. Representativeness decreased as scale increased up to 6 km, mainly explained by the elevation of a site relative to the larger area. The bias direction at individual snow stations is temporally consistent, suggesting the relationship between station depth and that of the surrounding area may be predictable. Improving understanding of snow station representativeness could allow for more accurate validation of modelled and remotely sensed data.

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

08 Aug 2024
Reanalyzing the spatial representativeness of snow depth at automated monitoring stations using airborne lidar data
Jordan N. Herbert, Mark S. Raleigh, and Eric E. Small
The Cryosphere, 18, 3495–3512, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3495-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Jordan N. Herbert, Mark S. Raleigh, and Eric E. Small

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Hannah Besso, 26 Jan 2024
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jordan Herbert, 11 Mar 2024
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Wyatt Reis, 27 Jan 2024
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Jordan Herbert, 11 Mar 2024
  • RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Hannah Besso, 14 Mar 2024

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Hannah Besso, 26 Jan 2024
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jordan Herbert, 11 Mar 2024
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Wyatt Reis, 27 Jan 2024
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Jordan Herbert, 11 Mar 2024
  • RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Hannah Besso, 14 Mar 2024

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (04 Apr 2024) by Franziska Koch
AR by Jordan Herbert on behalf of the Authors (01 May 2024)  Author's response   Author's tracked changes   Manuscript 
EF by Sarah Buchmann (02 May 2024)  Supplement 
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (02 May 2024) by Franziska Koch
RR by Wyatt Reis (17 May 2024)
RR by Hannah Besso (21 May 2024)
ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (25 May 2024) by Franziska Koch
AR by Jordan Herbert on behalf of the Authors (02 Jun 2024)  Author's response   Author's tracked changes   Manuscript 
ED: Publish as is (21 Jun 2024) by Franziska Koch
AR by Jordan Herbert on behalf of the Authors (23 Jun 2024)

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

08 Aug 2024
Reanalyzing the spatial representativeness of snow depth at automated monitoring stations using airborne lidar data
Jordan N. Herbert, Mark S. Raleigh, and Eric E. Small
The Cryosphere, 18, 3495–3512, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3495-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3495-2024, 2024
Short summary
Jordan N. Herbert, Mark S. Raleigh, and Eric E. Small
Jordan N. Herbert, Mark S. Raleigh, and Eric E. Small

Viewed

Total article views: 567 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
394 137 36 567 28 25 24
  • HTML: 394
  • PDF: 137
  • XML: 36
  • Total: 567
  • Supplement: 28
  • BibTeX: 25
  • EndNote: 24
Views and downloads (calculated since 20 Nov 2023)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 20 Nov 2023)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 561 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 561 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 18 Sep 2024
Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Short summary
Automated stations measure snow properties at a single point, but are frequently used to validate data that represent much larger areas. We use Lidar snow depth data to see how often the mean snow depth surrounding a snow station is within 10 cm of the snow station depth at different scales. We found snow stations overrepresent the area-mean snow depth in ~50 % of cases, but the direction of bias at a site is temporally consistent, suggesting a site could be calibrated to the surrounding area.