the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Ensemble-based snow depth data assimilation for a multi-layer snow scheme over the European Arctic
Abstract. Reliable estimates of Earth system conditions are important for weather forecasting, hydrological modelling and their downstream applications. Both real-time prediction systems and historical reanalyses use a combination of observations and physical laws embedded in numerical models to generate gapless and accurate estimates of weather, climate and hydrological conditions. Data assimilation systems merge information from the two sources in an objective way, accounting for their respective uncertainties. In this work we present a regional reanalysis system, focusing on the land surface component. The system uses a multi-layer snow model together with the ensemble-based Local Ensemble Transform Kalman Filter (LETKF) data assimilation scheme. The system is run for a 4 year period over the European Arctic, assimilating in situ snow depth observations. Evaluation of the snow depth estimates showed reduced errors compared to existing products and positive impact of the data assimilation over the domain. Furthermore, a significant difference in total accumulated snow water was seen over the domain, implying a potential impact on downstream hydrological applications. The ensemble correlations between the total snow depth and the relatively large control vector indicated that the ensemble was able to represent snow compaction processes. The LETKF is thus able to account for these processes, which are often neglected in snow depth data assimilation. The system presented in this study allows for future extensions, including other types of observations and analyses beyond snow variables.
- Preprint
(3256 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 20 Jun 2025)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-1693', Nima Zafarmomen, 15 May 2025
reply
The paper addresses an important gap: bringing a flow-dependent ensemble Kalman framework to a multi-layer snow scheme for a high‐latitude regional reanalysis. The topic is timely and the modelling chain (SURFEX–ISBA explicit snow + LETKF, driven by CARRA) is potentially valuable for cryospheric and hydrologic communities.
Forcing and domain
The manuscript states that CARRA forcing is “interpolated to the model grid” but omits grid spacing for both driver and land model. Domain limits are described in text but not in coordinates; include bounding box and spatial resolution.
Ensemble generation
Only perturbing atmospheric forcing inevitably under-represents uncertainty in snow compaction, albedo metamorphism, and interception. You should quantify how ensemble spread compares to innovation statistics (e.g., spread-skill ratio) to demonstrate sufficiency of the perturbation strategy. If spread is systematically low, adding multiplicative inflation alone is insufficient; process perturbations or parameter perturbations may be needed.
The “remapping” approach for precipitation displacement is innovative, yet Appendix A lacks diagnostic evidence that the scheme produces realistic error structures. Provide at minimum a variogram or visual comparison between perturbed and reference precipitation fields.
Ensemble size
Ten members is very small for a 36-variable profile. You report that 20 members offered “no considerable degradation”, but give no metrics. Include a sensitivity figure (e.g., CRPS vs. ensemble size) to justify the final choice.
Increment analysis (Sect. 3.1)
Figure 4 shows domain-mean increments of several millimetres water equivalent per day—this is large. Provide histograms or spatial standard deviations to make clear whether these increments are isolated to specific subregions or pervasive. Without that context, the reader cannot judge if the LETKF is “adding missing precipitation” or merely compensating biased forcing.
Skill metrics
– CRPS and MAE are reported, but no sampling uncertainty is provided. Bootstrap confidence intervals would show whether the apparent improvements are statistically robust.
– Station splits (OBS-ONLY-Pv1, etc.) prove useful, yet the sample sizes differ dramatically. Present RMSE normalised by climatological variance to avoid overweighting dense station clusters.SWE validation
Only six pillow sites are available, but you can still compute Kling-Gupta or Nash–Sutcliffe across time to give hydrologists a sense of hydro-logical skill. Also, the negative bias at one degraded site coincides with orographic precipitation maxima; examine whether forcing under-catch is the root cause.
I strongly recommend that the authors expand their discussion, as data assimilation is not only applicable to snow schemes but is also widely used in other areas such as streamflow prediction. I also recommend citing the following papers: Optimising ensemble streamflow predictions with bias correction and data assimilation techniques; Assimilation of Sentinel-Based Leaf Area Index for Modeling Surface-Ground Water Interactions in Irrigation DistrictsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1693-CC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
41 | 13 | 3 | 57 | 1 | 2 |
- HTML: 41
- PDF: 13
- XML: 3
- Total: 57
- BibTeX: 1
- EndNote: 2
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1