the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Reanalyzing the spatial representativeness of snow depth at automated monitoring stations using airborne Lidar data
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.
-
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
(9676 KB)
-
Supplement
(22 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9676 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(22 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Hannah Besso, 26 Jan 2024
The paper constitutes an important contribution to the field. Snow station data are used for many applications in hydrology. This study adds to our understanding of these stations’ representativeness of basin snow quantities and is an important addition to snow hydrology. The scale of the analysis and use of lidar sets it apart from previous studies. However, the authors should explain better and/or reevaluate the temporal analysis. They should also remove the landcover component from Research Question 3, since the author states in the discussion that the dataset used for this component of the analysis was inadequate. Additionally, the manuscript (especially the Analyses section) should be reorganized or condensed to make the story clearer.
See attached PDF for full review.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jordan Herbert, 11 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Wyatt Reis, 27 Jan 2024
The paper addresses a serious question that have been raised many times on the representativeness of current point measurements of snow across the US at SNOTEL or equivalent sites. These questions have become increasingly important to answer with the proliferation of modelling and remote sensing efforts that utilize the sites as a tuning parameter. The increasing availability of lidar data provides an intriguing opportunity to better define the representativeness of the sites. While the paper needs refinement prior to publishing, the methods used are appropriate and provide great insight into the stationarity of snow depth point measurements at SNOTEL and CA DWR sites. I recommend the authors condense significant portions of the paper, especially in the introduction, methods, and results.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Jordan Herbert, 11 Mar 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Hannah Besso, 14 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2543/egusphere-2023-2543-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Jordan Herbert, 18 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2543/egusphere-2023-2543-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Jordan Herbert, 18 Mar 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Hannah Besso, 26 Jan 2024
The paper constitutes an important contribution to the field. Snow station data are used for many applications in hydrology. This study adds to our understanding of these stations’ representativeness of basin snow quantities and is an important addition to snow hydrology. The scale of the analysis and use of lidar sets it apart from previous studies. However, the authors should explain better and/or reevaluate the temporal analysis. They should also remove the landcover component from Research Question 3, since the author states in the discussion that the dataset used for this component of the analysis was inadequate. Additionally, the manuscript (especially the Analyses section) should be reorganized or condensed to make the story clearer.
See attached PDF for full review.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC1', Jordan Herbert, 11 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Wyatt Reis, 27 Jan 2024
The paper addresses a serious question that have been raised many times on the representativeness of current point measurements of snow across the US at SNOTEL or equivalent sites. These questions have become increasingly important to answer with the proliferation of modelling and remote sensing efforts that utilize the sites as a tuning parameter. The increasing availability of lidar data provides an intriguing opportunity to better define the representativeness of the sites. While the paper needs refinement prior to publishing, the methods used are appropriate and provide great insight into the stationarity of snow depth point measurements at SNOTEL and CA DWR sites. I recommend the authors condense significant portions of the paper, especially in the introduction, methods, and results.
- AC1: 'Reply on RC2', Jordan Herbert, 11 Mar 2024
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2543', Hannah Besso, 14 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2543/egusphere-2023-2543-RC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Jordan Herbert, 18 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2023/egusphere-2023-2543/egusphere-2023-2543-AC3-supplement.pdf
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC3', Jordan Herbert, 18 Mar 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
HTML | 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
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
Jordan N. Herbert
Mark S. Raleigh
Eric E. Small
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(9676 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(22 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper