the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 29 Jul 2024
Seasonal snow cover indicators in coastal Greenland from in-situ observations, a climate model and reanalysis
Abstract. Seasonal snow cover has important climatic and ecological implications for the ice-free regions of coastal Greenland. Here we present, for the first time, a dataset of quality-controlled snow depth measurements from nine locations in coastal Greenland with varying periods between 1997 and 2021. Using a simple modelling approach (∆snow) we estimate snow water equivalent values solely based on the daily time series of snow depth. Snow pit measurements from two locations enable us to evaluate the ∆snow model. As there is very little in-situ data available for Greenland, we then test the performance of the regional atmospheric climate model (RACMO2.3p2, 5.5 km spatial resolution) and reanalysis product (CARRA, 2.5 km spatial resolution) at the nine locations with snow observations. Using the combined information from all three data sources, we study spatio-temporal characteristics of the seasonal snow cover in coastal Greenland by the example of six ecologically relevant snow indicators (maximum snow water equivalent, melt onset, melt duration, snow cover duration, snow cover onset, snow cover end). In particular, we evaluate the ability of RACMO2.3p2 and CARRA to simulate these snow indicators at the nine different locations, perform a time series analysis of the indicators and assess their spatial variability. The different locations have considerable spatial and temporal variability in snow cover characteristics and seasonal maximum snow water equivalent (amount of liquid water stored in the snowpack)values range from less than 50 mm w.e. to greater than 600 mm w.e. The correlation coefficients between maximum snow water equivalent output from ∆snow and CARRA/RACMO are 0.73 and 0.48 respectively. Correlation coefficients are highest for maximum snow water equivalent and snow cover duration, and model and reanalysis output underestimate snow cover onset. We find little evidence of statistically significant (p < 0.05) trends at varied periods between 1997 and 2021 except for the earlier onset of snow melt in Zackenberg (−8 days/decade, p = 0.02, based upon RACMO output). While we stress the need for context-specific validation, this study suggests that in most cases snow depth or snow water equivalent output from CARRA can describe spatial-temporal characteristics of seasonal snow cover, particularly changes in melt onset and snow cover end.
-
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
(3305 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3305 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1999', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Aug 2024
The study presents a valuable contribution to our understanding of seasonal snow cover in coastal Greenland and evaluates the accuracy and possibility of using outputs from climate models to reflect snow cover changes in the Arctic tundra. Although ground observations are limited, it is very hard to manually measure snow cover data in the field, especially in the Greenland Arctic because of remote locations and poor logistics. Therefore, I have some minor revisions to improve this manuscript in detail.
Line 53, a spelling error, it should be “however”.
Line 57-59, it seems better to put this content in the section of data.
Line 60, what is the meaning of HS, which appears here for the first time.
Line 136, can you give readers a bit more information regarding the snow simulation module in the RACMO2.3p2 dataset? Which physical processes are considered?
Line 158, what is the method of resampling?
Line 185, why is the window of rolling means 5 days? How about 3 days or 7 days?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1999-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jorrit van der Schot, 18 Sep 2024
We would like to thank both reviewers for their feedback, comments and suggestions which have all been very helpful and will ultimately improve the quality of the paper. For a structured author response to both reviewers, please see the attachment.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jorrit van der Schot, 18 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1999', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Aug 2024
The authors present a study showing how in-situ measurements, a reanalysis product and a regional climate model can all be used to estimate snow water equivalent and other snow cover parameters in coastal Greenland. They find that the reanalysis product is more suited to estimating snow cover properties than the regional climate model and suggest that reanalysis data can be used to describe snow cover properties when in situ data are unavailable. This is a solid paper suited for publication in this journal following some minor revisions, which are suggested alongside some broader comments to improve readability below.
General Comments:
The paper would be easier to follow if the same symbols/colours were used to represent each site/dataset across the different figures. To give a few examples, the colour scale goes from blue as the start of the year and yellow as the end of the year in Figure 3, but the reverse is the case for Figure 5; The line styles for the 3 different datasets change between Figure 4 and 8; and different colours and symbols are used to represent the sites in Figures 6 and 7.
The units and notation used to refer to snow water equivalent is not consistent throughout the paper. This is usually referred to in mm w.e., but sometimes w. eq.. I think it would be more in line with other publications to just use mm for SWE. Also on notation, the term “snow cover end” feels somewhat unconventional and does not clarify that that is a date. Consider substituting for something like “snow cover end date” or “snow off date”.
Minor/Technical Comments:
Line 45: Remove “occurring”
Line 53: Typo – however?
Line 101: Recommendations, not recommendation.
Line 106: Please rephrase to clarify if the fractional seasons from 1990 and 2022 have been included in the calculation.
Table 1 (approx. line 117): Why is one of the stations underlined?
Line 123: Is it more likely to be an accuracy of 10% or 15%?
Line 126: What is HARMONIE? Please write out acronyms in full at first use
Line 140: Insert “resolution” after 5.5 km
Lines 144 – 150: Please expand the description of the △snow model
Line 181: Add reference to Fig 2
Table 2 (approx. line 288 onwards): I am not convinced that this needs to be in the main text. I would suggest moving this to the appendix.
Figure 8: There is a lot going on in this figure which makes difficult to get an eye in and the textbox in plot a overlaps with the data presented. I’m not completely sure how best to improve it, but removing gridlines, text box edges and repeated x-axis labels might help.
Line 334: Does density act as a greater control of SWEmax than maximum snowpack height? Could you add something about relative snow depth differences between sites to this paragraph?
Line 363: How long is “relatively short”? Please quantify the length of the timeseries.
Line 371: What is the GEMP? Please define this acronym
Line 421: Other studies suggest that changes in the timing of snow-off will not lead to changes in the length of the growing season (e.g., Kelsey et al. 2021; Semenchuk et al, 2016; Starr et al. 2000). Please justify.
Line 432: Do the limitations need to be a separate subsection when this is only 2 sentences long?
Line 466 : This is a very unusual place to put a summary. If you wish to include this, consider moving it to the beginning of the article.
Line 615: What does the grey dashed line represent in Figure A1?
Line 623: The caption says “all sites” but only 5 of the 9 sites included are shown in Figure A2.
Appendix B: These tables are not referred to in the main text, and I am not convinced that they are needed.
References:
Kelsey, K. C., S. H. Pedersen, A. J. Leffler, J. O. Sexton, M. Feng, and J. M. Welker. 2021. ‘Winter Snow and Spring Temperature Have Differential Effects on Vegetation Phenology and Productivity across Arctic Plant Communities’. Global Change Biology 27 (8): 1572–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15505
Semenchuk, Philipp R., Mark A. K. Gillespie, Sabine B. Rumpf, Nanna Baggesen, Bo Elberling, and Elisabeth J. Cooper. 2016. ‘High Arctic Plant Phenology Is Determined by Snowmelt Patterns but Duration of Phenological Periods Is Fixed: An Example of Periodicity’. Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/125006.
Starr, Gregory, Steven F. Oberbauer, and Eric. W. Pop. 2000. ‘Effects of Lengthened Growing Season and Soil Warming on the Phenology and Physiology of Polygonum Bistorta’. Global Change Biology 6 (3): 357–69. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00316.x.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1999-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jorrit van der Schot, 18 Sep 2024
We would like to thank both reviewers for their feedback, comments and suggestions which have all been very helpful and will ultimately improve the quality of the paper. For a structured author response to both reviewers, please see the attachment.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jorrit van der Schot, 18 Sep 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1999', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Aug 2024
The study presents a valuable contribution to our understanding of seasonal snow cover in coastal Greenland and evaluates the accuracy and possibility of using outputs from climate models to reflect snow cover changes in the Arctic tundra. Although ground observations are limited, it is very hard to manually measure snow cover data in the field, especially in the Greenland Arctic because of remote locations and poor logistics. Therefore, I have some minor revisions to improve this manuscript in detail.
Line 53, a spelling error, it should be “however”.
Line 57-59, it seems better to put this content in the section of data.
Line 60, what is the meaning of HS, which appears here for the first time.
Line 136, can you give readers a bit more information regarding the snow simulation module in the RACMO2.3p2 dataset? Which physical processes are considered?
Line 158, what is the method of resampling?
Line 185, why is the window of rolling means 5 days? How about 3 days or 7 days?Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1999-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jorrit van der Schot, 18 Sep 2024
We would like to thank both reviewers for their feedback, comments and suggestions which have all been very helpful and will ultimately improve the quality of the paper. For a structured author response to both reviewers, please see the attachment.
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Jorrit van der Schot, 18 Sep 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1999', Anonymous Referee #2, 05 Aug 2024
The authors present a study showing how in-situ measurements, a reanalysis product and a regional climate model can all be used to estimate snow water equivalent and other snow cover parameters in coastal Greenland. They find that the reanalysis product is more suited to estimating snow cover properties than the regional climate model and suggest that reanalysis data can be used to describe snow cover properties when in situ data are unavailable. This is a solid paper suited for publication in this journal following some minor revisions, which are suggested alongside some broader comments to improve readability below.
General Comments:
The paper would be easier to follow if the same symbols/colours were used to represent each site/dataset across the different figures. To give a few examples, the colour scale goes from blue as the start of the year and yellow as the end of the year in Figure 3, but the reverse is the case for Figure 5; The line styles for the 3 different datasets change between Figure 4 and 8; and different colours and symbols are used to represent the sites in Figures 6 and 7.
The units and notation used to refer to snow water equivalent is not consistent throughout the paper. This is usually referred to in mm w.e., but sometimes w. eq.. I think it would be more in line with other publications to just use mm for SWE. Also on notation, the term “snow cover end” feels somewhat unconventional and does not clarify that that is a date. Consider substituting for something like “snow cover end date” or “snow off date”.
Minor/Technical Comments:
Line 45: Remove “occurring”
Line 53: Typo – however?
Line 101: Recommendations, not recommendation.
Line 106: Please rephrase to clarify if the fractional seasons from 1990 and 2022 have been included in the calculation.
Table 1 (approx. line 117): Why is one of the stations underlined?
Line 123: Is it more likely to be an accuracy of 10% or 15%?
Line 126: What is HARMONIE? Please write out acronyms in full at first use
Line 140: Insert “resolution” after 5.5 km
Lines 144 – 150: Please expand the description of the △snow model
Line 181: Add reference to Fig 2
Table 2 (approx. line 288 onwards): I am not convinced that this needs to be in the main text. I would suggest moving this to the appendix.
Figure 8: There is a lot going on in this figure which makes difficult to get an eye in and the textbox in plot a overlaps with the data presented. I’m not completely sure how best to improve it, but removing gridlines, text box edges and repeated x-axis labels might help.
Line 334: Does density act as a greater control of SWEmax than maximum snowpack height? Could you add something about relative snow depth differences between sites to this paragraph?
Line 363: How long is “relatively short”? Please quantify the length of the timeseries.
Line 371: What is the GEMP? Please define this acronym
Line 421: Other studies suggest that changes in the timing of snow-off will not lead to changes in the length of the growing season (e.g., Kelsey et al. 2021; Semenchuk et al, 2016; Starr et al. 2000). Please justify.
Line 432: Do the limitations need to be a separate subsection when this is only 2 sentences long?
Line 466 : This is a very unusual place to put a summary. If you wish to include this, consider moving it to the beginning of the article.
Line 615: What does the grey dashed line represent in Figure A1?
Line 623: The caption says “all sites” but only 5 of the 9 sites included are shown in Figure A2.
Appendix B: These tables are not referred to in the main text, and I am not convinced that they are needed.
References:
Kelsey, K. C., S. H. Pedersen, A. J. Leffler, J. O. Sexton, M. Feng, and J. M. Welker. 2021. ‘Winter Snow and Spring Temperature Have Differential Effects on Vegetation Phenology and Productivity across Arctic Plant Communities’. Global Change Biology 27 (8): 1572–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15505
Semenchuk, Philipp R., Mark A. K. Gillespie, Sabine B. Rumpf, Nanna Baggesen, Bo Elberling, and Elisabeth J. Cooper. 2016. ‘High Arctic Plant Phenology Is Determined by Snowmelt Patterns but Duration of Phenological Periods Is Fixed: An Example of Periodicity’. Environmental Research Letters. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/125006.
Starr, Gregory, Steven F. Oberbauer, and Eric. W. Pop. 2000. ‘Effects of Lengthened Growing Season and Soil Warming on the Phenology and Physiology of Polygonum Bistorta’. Global Change Biology 6 (3): 357–69. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2000.00316.x.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1999-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jorrit van der Schot, 18 Sep 2024
We would like to thank both reviewers for their feedback, comments and suggestions which have all been very helpful and will ultimately improve the quality of the paper. For a structured author response to both reviewers, please see the attachment.
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Jorrit van der Schot, 18 Sep 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 304 | 136 | 290 | 730 | 6 | 8 |
- HTML: 304
- PDF: 136
- XML: 290
- Total: 730
- BibTeX: 6
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Jorrit van der Schot
Jakob Abermann
Tiago Silva
Kerstin Rasmussen
Michael Winkler
Kirsty Langley
Wolfgang Schöner
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(3305 KB) - Metadata XML