Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2562
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2562
02 Sep 2024
 | 02 Sep 2024
Status: this preprint is open for discussion.

Investigating the impact of reanalysis snow input on an observationally calibrated snow-on-sea-ice reconstruction

Alex Cabaj, Paul J. Kushner, and Alek A. Petty

Abstract. A key uncertainty in reanalysis-based snow-on-sea-ice reconstructions is the choice of reanalysis product used for snowfall input. Although reanalysis products have many similarities in their precipitation output over the Arctic Ocean, they nevertheless have relative biases that impact derived snow-on-sea-ice estimates. In this study, snowfall from the ERA5, JRA-55 and MERRA-2 reanalysis products is used as input to the NASA Eulerian Snow On Sea Ice Model (NESOSIM). A Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) approach is used to calibrate the wind packing and blowing snow parameters in NESOSIM run with these different snowfall inputs. A multi-input-averaged snow-on-sea-ice product is then constructed from NESOSIM run with the three reanalysis products. JRA-55 shows the largest departure from the previously-used values (Bayesian priors) when the MCMC calibration is run, and also has the largest posterior uncertainty due to parameter uncertainties. The MCMC calibration reconciles snow depths between NESOSIM run with different reanalysis snowfall inputs, but produces larger discrepancies in snow densities, due to the sensitivity of snow density in NESOSIM to parameter values and weak observational constraints on density. Regional climatologies and trends in the calibrated products are examined and compared to another reanalysis-based snow-on-sea-ice reconstruction, SnowModel-LG. NESOSIM and SnowModel-LG show close agreement in snow depth climatologies in the Central Arctic Ocean region, but differ more in peripheral seas. Trends are found to be region-dependent, and the magnitude of Central Arctic Ocean snow depth trends is more sensitive to the choice of reanalysis input than to the choice of model.

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.
Alex Cabaj, Paul J. Kushner, and Alek A. Petty

Status: open (until 14 Oct 2024)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Alex Cabaj, Paul J. Kushner, and Alek A. Petty

Data sets

NESOSIM-MCMC Multi-Reanalysis-Average Product With Uncertainty Estimates Alex Cabaj, Alek A. Petty, and Paul J. Kushner https://zenodo.org/records/13307801

Model code and software

NESOSIM with MCMC calibration Alex Cabaj and Alek A. Petty https://zenodo.org/records/7644948

Alex Cabaj, Paul J. Kushner, and Alek A. Petty

Viewed

Total article views: 131 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total BibTeX EndNote
87 31 13 131 4 4
  • HTML: 87
  • PDF: 31
  • XML: 13
  • Total: 131
  • BibTeX: 4
  • EndNote: 4
Views and downloads (calculated since 02 Sep 2024)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 02 Sep 2024)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 140 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 140 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
Latest update: 26 Sep 2024
Download
Short summary
The output of snow-on-sea-ice models is influenced by the choice of snowfall input used. We ran such a model with different snowfall inputs and calibrated it to observations, produced a new calibrated snow product, and regionally compared the model outputs to another snow-on-sea-ice model. The two models agree best on the seasonal cycle of snow in the central Arctic Ocean. However, estimated snow trends in some regions can depend more on the snowfall input than on the choice of model.