the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of the Snow CCI Snow Covered Area Product within a Mountain Snow Water Equivalent Reanalysis
Abstract. An accurate characterization of global snow water equivalent (SWE) is essential in the study of climate and water resources. The current global SWE dataset from the European Space Agency Snow Climate Change Initiative is derived from the assimilation of passive microwave satellite data and in situ snow depth measurements. However, gaps exist in the current Snow CCI SWE dataset in complex terrain due to difficulties in characterizing mountain SWE via the passive microwave sensing approach and limitations of the in situ snow depth measurements. This study applies a Bayesian snow reanalysis approach with the existing Snow CCI snow cover fraction (SCF) dataset (1 km resolution) to develop a SWE dataset over four mountainous domains in Western North America for WYs 2001–2019. The reanalysis SWE estimates are evaluated through comparisons with independent SWE datasets, and a parallel SWE reanalysis generated using snow extent retrieved from Landsat imagery (30 m resolution). Biases in Snow CCI reanalysis SWE were diagnosed by comparing Snow CCI snow cover with the Landsat reference. Both the number of SCF images and their characteristics (such as zenith angle) significantly affect the accuracy of SWE estimation. Overall, the Snow CCI SCF inputs produce reanalysis SWE of sufficient quality to fill the mountain SWE gap in the current Snow CCI SWE climate data record. A better characterization of the SCF uncertainty and a bias correction could further improve the accuracy of the reanalysis SWE estimates.
- Preprint
(7809 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1314 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 12 Jan 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3213', Laura Sourp & Simon Gascoin (co-review team), 13 Dec 2024
reply
This article presents an evaluation of a SWE reanalysis generated by assimilation of the Snow CCI snow covered area product derived from MODIS data. The lack of accurate spatially distributed SWE in mountain regions is a well-known issue in snow hydrology. This work is a contribution to fill this gap.
The article reads very well and the study is well conducted. The utilization of the view angle as a weighting factor of the MODIS data is (to our best knowledge) new and interesting.
Our main concern is related to the motivation of the study. There are several snow covered area dataset available (https://lpvs.gsfc.nasa.gov/producers2.php?topic=snow). In particular NASA’s MOD10 products provide similar information as the Snow CCI product and are available globally in near real time. The Snow CCI daily SCF version 2 dataset used in this study is available over the period 2000-2020 only and it seems that it is not updated (version 3 extends to 2022). We can think of some reasons but we recommend that the authors explain why they have chosen the CCI product among others.
In addition, this study shows that a Landsat-derived SWE reanalysis largely outperforms the MODIS-CCI-derived reanalysis. Therefore, we are tempted to conclude that a global mountain snow reanalysis should be performed with Landsat fSCA. But the authors seem to implicitly consider that this is not an option. We believe that this should also be clearly stated and justified in the introduction.
Minor comments
Several acronyms were not defined (L14 WY, L69 fSCA, L11 CCI, L249 DOWY)
Fig 2: Because the tiles are defined in lon/lat angles, Fig. 2e merges tiles of different areas, giving more weight to tiles close to the equator.
L200 In this earlier study MODSCAG algorithm was used to retrieve fSCA and not SCAmod. Therefore there is no reason to specifically refer to this study to justify the 15% value. Other evaluations of MODIS-based snow products should be considered.
L206: “the weighting function 𝑤(𝜃) varies within (0,1] by its definition” Yet maximum MODIS scan angle is 55° hence w will never reach 0. It is difficult to understand how this weighting factor w was defined by Dozier et al. 2008. It would be useful to plot w as a function of the MODIS scan angle. In addition, from a more practical perspective, how were obtained the MODIS zenith angle values? It seems that the Snow CCI product does not provide such information.
L274. Cite the Vionnet et al. paper instead of the URL.
L280. The interpolation method is first an “aggregation” and then a nearest neighbor interpolation. What means aggregation (average?). Why not resampling directly to the target grid in a single operation? Why a nearest neighbor interpolation?
L295. Why was the evaluation limited to peak SWE? There are many other ASO SWE products in the Tuolumne (e.g. 49 SWE products between 2012 and 2019, Sourp et al. 2024 https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-791, data available online https://nsidc.org/data/aso_50m_swe/versions/1).
L309-311. We find a bit confusing to use the Landsat posterior SWE as reference in section 3.1 especially in Figure 6 (where the colors indicate the residuals with respect to Landsat reanalysis). We could suggest to replace the right panel with another scatterplot showing the prior SWE instead of the Snow CCI posterior as a y-axis.
However, we find Figure 7 very informative and well designed. “30 out of 59 sites-year show improvement relative to prior” Does it suggest that assimilating the Snow CCI product was not beneficial on average?
Fig. 9: 1%-99% percentiles are usually taken to represent large sample size, here there are only 20 values.
L470. Figure 11 suggests that the thresholds of cloudiness and w discussed earlier in the paper could be revisited. This could be discussed and ideally a sensitivity analysis to these thresholds would be useful (but it may be a lot of computation to ask).
L526. Fig14 How to interpret the poor performance (i.e. the large difference with Landsat posterior estimates) in Bow domain for forest cover 0-10% in comparison with 10-50%?
L568. 0.01°
Reviewers: S Gascoin, L Sourp, N Imperatore
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3213-RC1
Data sets
Snow CCI and Landsat reanalysis outputs Haorui Sun https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13930080
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
66 | 17 | 5 | 88 | 12 | 1 | 4 |
- HTML: 66
- PDF: 17
- XML: 5
- Total: 88
- Supplement: 12
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1