the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Implementation of multi-layer snow scheme in seasonal forecast system and its impact on model climatological bias
Abstract. This study explores the influence of implementing a multi-layer snow scheme on the climatological bias within a seasonal forecast system. A single-layer snow schemes in land surface models often inadequately represent the insulating effect of snowpack, resulting in warm and cold biases during winter and snow melting seasons, respectively. By contrast, multi-layer snow schemes enable enhanced energy transport between the land and atmosphere. To investigate this impact, two versions of the Global Seasonal Forecast System (GloSea) – GloSea5 with a single-layer snow scheme and GloSea6 with a multi-layer snow scheme – are compared over 24 years (1993–2016). Results shed light on the significance of accurately representing the insulating effect of snow in improving retrospective seasonal forecasts. The GloSea6 shows that the snow melting season shifts two weeks later, accompanied by a significant improvement in surface temperature and permafrost extent. The extended snow cover delays the onset of evaporation in spring season, which slows down the physical process of drying out the soil moisture, resulting in the improvement in its climatology and memory. The abundant soil moisture enhances the partitioning of incoming energy into latent heat flux, allowing for more evaporative cooling at the surface, and constrains water-limited coupling. Such improvements in the land surface processes, especially over the mid-latitudes, mitigate the near-surface warming bias over the entire diurnal period and the oversensitivity of atmospheric conditions to the land surface variability. The model performance in simulating precipitation is also improved with the increase in precipitation occurrence over snow-covered regions, significantly reducing model error in the Great Plains, Europe, and South and East Asia. Above all, this study demonstrates the value of implementing a multi-layer snowpack scheme in seasonal forecast models, not only during the snowmelt season but also for the subsequent summer season, for model fidelity in simulating temperature and precipitation along with the reality of land-atmosphere interactions.
- Preprint
(2959 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1153 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1066', Anonymous Referee #1, 16 Jul 2024
The paper by Seo and Dirmeyer, titled “Implementation of Multi-layer Snow Scheme in Seasonal Forecast System and Its Impact on Model Climatological Bias,” investigates the effects of implementing a multi-layer snow scheme on the climatological biases of a seasonal forecast system. Traditional single-layer snow schemes in land surface models often inadequately capture the insulating effects of snowpack, leading to warm and cold biases during winter and snow melting seasons. The study compares the performance of the Global Seasonal Forecast System (GloSea) versions 5 (single-layer) and 6 (multi-layer) over a 24-year period. Findings reveal that the multi-layer snow scheme in GloSea6 shifts the snow melting season by two weeks, improving surface temperature, permafrost extent, and overall model climatology. This enhancement mitigates near-surface warming bias and improves precipitation simulation over snow-covered regions.
However, it overlooks critical differences in vegetation treatment between the Noah and Noah-MP models. Suzuki and Zupanski (2018, doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11707-018-0691-2) provide a thorough examination of the uncertainties in solid precipitation and snow depth prediction, which is highly relevant to this study. The differences between the land surface models are notable: the Noah model uses a one-canopy layer with a simple canopy resistance and a linearized energy balance equation representing the combined ground-vegetation surface, considering seasonal LAI and green vegetation fraction. In contrast, the Noah-MP model includes snow interception features such as loading-unloading, melt-refreeze capabilities, and sublimation of canopy-intercepted snow, along with a detailed representation of radiation transmission and attenuation through the canopy, within- and below-canopy turbulence, and different options for representing the biophysical controls on transpiration. Therefore, the changes affect not only snow-covered areas but also the global vegetation albedo and surface temperature. In their results, they report that the snow depth changes, but the snow water equivalent does not. The reason for the longer period of snow cover is believed to be due to the more accurate representation of radiation and turbulent fluxes benath the vegetation canopy. Therefore, the multi-layer snow model is not the critical factor in this case.
To enhance the completeness of your study, it is crucial to discuss the impact of vegetation treatment in addition to the multi-layer snow scheme.
By addressing these points, the manuscript will provide a more holistic view of the improvements in seasonal forecast systems and their broader climate implications.
Specific Comments
- Introduction and Background: Please include a discussion on the handling of vegetation in land surface models, specifically contrasting the Noah and Noah-MP models.
- Methodology: Please provide detailed descriptions of the Noah and Noah-MP models, focusing on their treatment of vegetation and snow processes. In addition, please discuss how these differences might affect your results and the broader implications for climate modeling.
- Results and Discussion: Please analyze the impact of vegetation treatment on your findings, especially in terms of global vegetation albedo and surface temperature.
- Conclusion: Please emphasize the importance of considering both snow and vegetation processes in land surface models.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1066-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Eunkyo Seo, 27 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1066/egusphere-2024-1066-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1066', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Jul 2024
The paper “Implementation of Multi-layer Snow Scheme in Seasonal Forecast System and Its Impact on Model Climatological Bias” evaluated the retrospective seasonal forecast performance of the Global Seasonal Forecast System (GloSea) version 5 (GloSea5, with a single-layer snow scheme) and version 6 (GloSea6, with a multi-layer snow scheme) over a 24-year period (1993-2016), focusing on the impacts of multi-layer snow scheme (GloSea6) versus single layer snow scheme (GloSea5) on the climatological biases of the seasonal forecast system. Results revealed that GloSea6 more accurately captures the snow phenology, elongating the snow melting season by two weeks, which improves the simulations of soil moisture, surface temperature, surface evaporation and subsequent land-atmosphere coupling regime in mid-to-high latitudes. This enhancement mitigates near-surface warming bias and improves precipitation simulation over snow-covered regions during late spring to summer. The authors attributed this improvement to the multi-layer snow scheme in GloSea6, yet more analyses are necessary to exclude other model physics updates (including atmosphere, ocean and sea ice) to support this conclusion.
Major points:
- Snow cover is important in land surface modeling, besides the treatment of snowpack in single layer or multi-layer scheme, snow surface albedo and snow cover fraction (the percentage of a model grid that is covered by snow) are pivotal factors that influence the accumulation and melting of snow cover in climate models. How about the difference in these two factors in GloSea5 and GloSea6?
- Why are surface soil moisture (SSM) simulated in GloSea5 are more than those in GloSea6 from October to March but the situation reversed (i.e., GloSea5 SSM less than GloSea6) after April, although the initial snow amount are close to each other on April 1st (Figure1a,b)?
- In line 270-271, the author claimed that the weaker insulating effect of the single-layer snow scheme leads to warmer surface temperature during thin (snow melting or freezing season) snow cover (figure 1c), in fact, during the freezing season from October to January when the air is colder than land surface, if the single-layer snow scheme provides a weaker insulating effect, it should lead to colder rather than warmer surface temperature. How to understand this contradiction?
- Figure2a shows that GloSea6 provides more surface soil moisture in mid-to-high latitudes of the northern Hemisphere, in addition to the positive evapotranspiration-precipitation feedbacks suggested by the authors (line 355), is it possible that the update in atmospheric physics in GloSea6 rather than the update of snowpack scheme from single layer to multi-layer results in more precipitation than GloSea5 in these regions (Figure 6a,b)?
- How to explain the deterioration of both bias and RMSE of Tmax and precipitation in GloSea6 with improved snow scheme in northeastern Eurasian continent (Figures 4e, 5f, 6f)?
Minor points:
- Line 14 of the abstract, “permafrost extent” is not addressed in this study.
- Line 114, “single-layer snow scheme allows the surface layer of the atmosphere to directly access the heat in the soil” is not true when the snowpack is thick.
- Line 395, “(f)” should be “(c)”.
- Line 412, “winch” should be “which”.
- The title of this paper can be modified to be more appropriate for its content.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1066-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Eunkyo Seo, 27 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-1066/egusphere-2024-1066-AC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
359 | 94 | 31 | 484 | 38 | 16 | 17 |
- HTML: 359
- PDF: 94
- XML: 31
- Total: 484
- Supplement: 38
- BibTeX: 16
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1