the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 02 Jun 2025
Measurements on physical snow properties in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica
Abstract. Understanding the seasonal evolution of Antarctic snow is essential for interpreting satellite observations and quantifying surface mass balance in Antarctica. In this study, we present in situ measurements collected during the Finnish Antarctic Research Programme (FINNARP) 2022 expedition at the Finnish Aboa station, located in Dronning Maud Land, Western Antarctica, which is characterized by snow accumulation. Field observations were carried out weekly at the AWS5 automatic weather station, situated approximately 10 km from Aboa, as well as at selected overpass locations of the IceSat-2 and CryoSat-2 satellites. This manuscript presents data from the AWS5 site, where seasonal snow evolution was systematically monitored. The measurements included continuous meteorological observations from the weather station maintained by FINNARP, detailed snow pit profiles, ground-based and drone-based radiation measurements, and snow surface roughness observed using both drone-mounted and backpack-mounted laser scanners. Drone-based measurements enabled spatially extensive coverage using a laser scanner, a hyperspectral camera, and a pyranometer. Spatial variability of snow surface properties was assessed at five locations in addition to the primary snow pit. The collected dataset provides valuable insight for improving satellite remote sensing and for advancing our understanding of the relationships between albedo, surface roughness, and physical snow properties.
-
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
(1806 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1806 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2059', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jul 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leena Leppänen, 29 Aug 2025
Responses to the comments of reviewer 1 are in the attached file.
-
AC3: 'Reply on AC1', Leena Leppänen, 01 Sep 2025
A correction to the response:
L222: “Example of hyperspectral camera data” Please indicate what kind of physical quantities is ‘Example’?
Changed as “Example of hyperspectral camera spectral radiance data”Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2059-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on AC1', Leena Leppänen, 01 Sep 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leena Leppänen, 29 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2059', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Jul 2025
Review of “Measurements on physical snow properties in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica” by Leena Leppänen et al.
Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems (GI): egusphere-2025-2059
General comments:
This paper reports in situ measurements conducted during the Finnish Antarctic Research Programme (FINNARP) 2022 expedition at the Finnish Aboa station in the Dronning Maud Land, Western Antarctica. Measured physical properties of the surface atmosphere and near-surface snow are listed together with specifications of the employed instruments. Some example data are also presented. These contents are generally well-documented, although I have identified some issues that should be addressed (see below). Therefore, I have confirmed that this paper can provide valuable insights into major national field campaigns and observational research programs in Antarctica, where performing a field campaign is always challenging. These imply that this paper can fit well with the scope of the journal GI.However, my overall impression is that this paper is something like a field report, because the data, methods, and results are presented in the same section (Sect. 2), which is not a typical composition of a scientific paper. Since I usually don’t follow this journal, I investigated some previous papers published in GI and found that the composition of the authors’ previous paper, published in GI (Leppänen et al., 2016, cited in this paper), is almost identical to the present paper. Therefore, I understand that the current composition is permissible for GI.
Based on the above, I suggest that this paper may be considered for potential publication in GI once the authors attend to the following points.
Specific comments (major)
L. 26 ~ L. 37: The content of the first paragraph of the introduction section is almost the same as that of the abstract, which gives a redundant impression. I recommend writing more general information related to the argument “Understanding the seasonal evolution of Antarctic snow is essential for interpreting satellite observations and quantifying surface mass balance in Antarctica.” in the abstract (L. 12 ~ L. 13) here.L. 118 ~ 120: Reviews of the previous studies (L. 47 ~ L. 116) are OK. So, why did the authors decide to conduct the FINNARP 2022 expedition? The motivation behind the FINNARP 2022 expedition and the scientific relationship between previous expeditions and FINNARP 2022 are unclear. Please consider describing them.
L. 282 ~ 285 and Fig. 12: In some liquid water content measurements for the surface snow, the measured values are positive although the simultaneously measured surface temperature is negative. How can we believe the measured liquid water content is accurate? Please explain.
L 287 ~ 289 and Fig. 13: The purpose of this part is unclear. If the authors want to retain the content, the discussion should be much more in-depth.
L. 329 ~ 340: Although snow surface roughness is highlighted in the conclusion section, I could not find a figure showing measured snow surface roughness quantitatively. Please reformulate the conclusion section.
Specific comments (minor)
L. 51 ~ L. 54: The quantitative information here can be more informative if the authors indicate the study period of Reijmer and Broeke (2003).L. 71: What do the authors mean by “fine layer structure”? A complementary explanation is needed.
L. 76: For “grain size”, it is necessary to specify whether it is geometric grain size or optically equivalent (optical) grain size.
L. 143, “12 m/s wind speed”: What is the measurement level for this wind speed value? Please indicate here.
L. 187 ~ L. 194: Please indicate whether the radiation sensors are ventilated or not.
L. 189 ~ L. 190, “shortwave and longwave radiation wavelengths”: Please indicate the wavelength range quantitatively.
Figure 6: Albedo data contains some obvious outliers (albedo > 1.0). These outliers and simultaneous downward and upward shortwave radiations should be masked. Another option is to lower the threshold value for the solar zenith angle (currently set at 80°).
Figure 11: Levels (depths) of the snow density profile measurements should be indicated in the caption.
Figure 14: Like the case for albedo (Fig. 6), the presented surface meteorological data contains some obvious errors (spikes), which should be masked in my humble opinion.
Technical corrections
L. 65: It seems to me that Table 1 is not mentioned in the running text.L. 69 ~ L. 70: Is the description “from the topmost 50 m of the snowpack” correct?
L. 89: “found” is better than “resulted”?
Figure 1: An explanation of the red square in the map for the entire Antarctic ice sheet is needed. Also, please describe the satellite data used to show background topography in this figure.
Figure 2: Please consider indicating the date when this picture was taken.
Table 2: When Table 2 is first referred to in the running text (L. 127), CM11 has not yet been introduced. Therefore, in the caption, a detailed description of CM11 should be provided.
L. 150, “(Fig. 3b)”: It is better to indicate it at the end of this sentence, in my humble opinion.
Figure 5a: Same as the comment on Table 2. Figure 5 is referred to in the running text before the explanation of CM11 is provided.
L. 227: “Fig. 5d” -> “Fig. 5a”?
Figure 6: “shortwave” must be indicated in the caption.
Figure 7: Time zone should be indicated in the upper panel of Fig. 7b.
L. 235: “(Fig. 5c)” -> “(Fig. 5d)”
Figure 8g: It seems to me that the cross section of the snow sample in the density cutter is not flat (this is an example of measurement failure). I recommend replacing the figure if possible.
L. 252, “grain size”: Please specify whether it is geometric snow grain size or optical snow grain size.
L. 254, “SEAR”: It seems to me that its definition is missing in the running text.
Figure 12 caption: “snow surface temperature (red) and air temperature (light red)” -> something like “snow surface temperature (red circles) and air temperature (light red solid line)”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2059-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Leena Leppänen, 29 Aug 2025
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2059', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Jul 2025
General comments:
This manuscript reports on the field activities of the Finnish Antarctic Research Programme (FINNARP) 2022 expedition, conducted during the 2022–2023 summer season at the Finnish Aboa station in Dronning Maud Land, Western Antarctica. The measurements included continuous meteorological observations at the automatic weather station (AWS), snow pit studies, ground-based and drone-based radiation measurements, and snow surface roughness observations using a laser scanner both from a drone and on the ground. Drone-based measurements using a laser scanner, a hyperspectral camera, and a pyranometer were performed in synchronization with overpasses of the IceSat-2 and CryoSat-2 satellites. The manuscript clearly describes the activities carried out.
I understand that this type of field report by Antarctic research programs is often published as a technical report by the respective programs or institutions. In order for this manuscript to be published in GI, it would be better to highlight new insights related to novel instrumentation, improved observation methods, or innovative combinations of existing techniques. I feel that the current manuscript lacks this aspect. Snow and meteorological observations have been conducted around this station in the past. Is drone-based observation a new feature of this expedition?
Additionally, the authors should clearly state the scientific purpose of this observation program and indicate whether sufficient data were obtained to achieve that purpose. These points are not adequately addressed in the current Introduction and Conclusion.
I suggest that the editor request a major revision of the manuscript from the authors.
Specific comments:
L29-37: “Aboa is located … (to the end of this paragraph)” This part describes about field measurements. So, these sentences should be moved in Chapter 2.
L76: “so that” I don’t understand the causal relationship before and after this term.
L106-107: “Some diurnal variations were found with the lowest albedos being in the mornings and in the evenings” This is opposite property to the general solar zenith angle dependence of albedo. Please explain the possible cause.
L118: “Aim of this paper is to describe the data set collected during the FINNARP 2022 expedition…” Please describe the scientific purpose of this expedition. In particular, it would be useful to compare the results with past observations and explain what is new and what should be continued.
L121: “2 Field measurements” I suggest adding a table that lists the instruments used for this observation, along with their basic specifications.
L147: “QGroundControl” It should be added a reference or a description that explains what this product is.
L191: “… Fig. 6.” Please explain why some albedos are beyond 1.0.
L222: “Example of hyperspectral camera data” Please indicate what kind of physical quantities is ‘Example’?
L235: “a portable ASD Field Spec Pro Jr. spectroradiometer” I suggest adding a figure showing examples of spectral albedo if it is important for the purpose of this research program.
L254: “SEAR” I don't know if this is a commonly used abbreviation. It would be helpful to explain it.
L288-289: “indicating that surface snow SSA is influenced by grain size, grain type, and liquid water content, in addition to density.” I think that there is not shown sufficient evidence to make such a definitive statement.
L295: In Figure 9, the observed snow stratigraphy appears to have remained stable during the period indicated by the vertical lines. The results of each measurement should be shown in a bar graph for the days on which the observations were made.
L314-318: I suggest adding a table summarizing the AWS sensors and their specifications. It would also be helpful for readers to show the picture of the AWS.
L321-322: “Jumps in the sensor distance from the snow surface potentially originate from ice or snow accumulation to the sensor or wind drift to the measured area.” Please briefly describe what quality control (QC) have been (or will be) performed, or cite references if they have already been published. It would be helpful to have a summary explanation of QC for other AWS observation data as well.
L329: “4 Conclusion” Please indicate whether sufficient data were obtained to achieve that scientific purpose of this research program.
L330-331: “Surface roughness is one of the most important parameters affecting retrieval of satellite data from Antarctica but it is still studied little and typically only over small areas.” This sentence should be mentioned after explaining the overall summary of the following sentences.
Technical corrections:
L52: Please correct “accumulation is strongest” to “accumulation is most abundant”.
L155: “3 cm data spacing” Is it a spatial resolution?
L166: Figure 4: Both a distance scale bar and a color scale bar are needed in the figure.
L209: Please correct “smaller” to “shorter”.
L254: Please correct “Grains” to “Snow grains”.
L255: “…and 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 15 and 20 cm below surface” Please add “snow at” before the figures of snow depth.
L258: “Specific surface area (SSA)” Please add “of snow grains” after “(SSA)”.
L274: Please correct “was” to “were”.
L300: Figs. 10, 11, and 13: Uniform units are not used in the figures and text. For example, SSA unit is “m2 kg-1” in the figures, but “m2/kg” in the text.
L301: Please correct “SSA from the snow surface” to “SSA measured at the snow surface”
L304: “Figure 11: Snow density profile (black) and surface measurements (red)” This caption is somewhat unclear. Do authors mean the snow density values at the surface (red) and vertical distribution values at subsurface depths (black)?
L306: “Figure 12: Liquid water content from snow surface (black), snow surface temperature (red) and air temperature (light red)” Please correct “(black)”, “(red)” and “(light red)” to “(black dots)”, “(red dots)” and “(light red curve)”, respectively.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2059-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leena Leppänen, 29 Aug 2025
Responses to the comments of reviewer 1 are in the attached file.
-
AC3: 'Reply on AC1', Leena Leppänen, 01 Sep 2025
A correction to the response:
L222: “Example of hyperspectral camera data” Please indicate what kind of physical quantities is ‘Example’?
Changed as “Example of hyperspectral camera spectral radiance data”Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2059-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on AC1', Leena Leppänen, 01 Sep 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Leena Leppänen, 29 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2059', Anonymous Referee #2, 25 Jul 2025
Review of “Measurements on physical snow properties in Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica” by Leena Leppänen et al.
Geoscientific Instrumentation, Methods and Data Systems (GI): egusphere-2025-2059
General comments:
This paper reports in situ measurements conducted during the Finnish Antarctic Research Programme (FINNARP) 2022 expedition at the Finnish Aboa station in the Dronning Maud Land, Western Antarctica. Measured physical properties of the surface atmosphere and near-surface snow are listed together with specifications of the employed instruments. Some example data are also presented. These contents are generally well-documented, although I have identified some issues that should be addressed (see below). Therefore, I have confirmed that this paper can provide valuable insights into major national field campaigns and observational research programs in Antarctica, where performing a field campaign is always challenging. These imply that this paper can fit well with the scope of the journal GI.However, my overall impression is that this paper is something like a field report, because the data, methods, and results are presented in the same section (Sect. 2), which is not a typical composition of a scientific paper. Since I usually don’t follow this journal, I investigated some previous papers published in GI and found that the composition of the authors’ previous paper, published in GI (Leppänen et al., 2016, cited in this paper), is almost identical to the present paper. Therefore, I understand that the current composition is permissible for GI.
Based on the above, I suggest that this paper may be considered for potential publication in GI once the authors attend to the following points.
Specific comments (major)
L. 26 ~ L. 37: The content of the first paragraph of the introduction section is almost the same as that of the abstract, which gives a redundant impression. I recommend writing more general information related to the argument “Understanding the seasonal evolution of Antarctic snow is essential for interpreting satellite observations and quantifying surface mass balance in Antarctica.” in the abstract (L. 12 ~ L. 13) here.L. 118 ~ 120: Reviews of the previous studies (L. 47 ~ L. 116) are OK. So, why did the authors decide to conduct the FINNARP 2022 expedition? The motivation behind the FINNARP 2022 expedition and the scientific relationship between previous expeditions and FINNARP 2022 are unclear. Please consider describing them.
L. 282 ~ 285 and Fig. 12: In some liquid water content measurements for the surface snow, the measured values are positive although the simultaneously measured surface temperature is negative. How can we believe the measured liquid water content is accurate? Please explain.
L 287 ~ 289 and Fig. 13: The purpose of this part is unclear. If the authors want to retain the content, the discussion should be much more in-depth.
L. 329 ~ 340: Although snow surface roughness is highlighted in the conclusion section, I could not find a figure showing measured snow surface roughness quantitatively. Please reformulate the conclusion section.
Specific comments (minor)
L. 51 ~ L. 54: The quantitative information here can be more informative if the authors indicate the study period of Reijmer and Broeke (2003).L. 71: What do the authors mean by “fine layer structure”? A complementary explanation is needed.
L. 76: For “grain size”, it is necessary to specify whether it is geometric grain size or optically equivalent (optical) grain size.
L. 143, “12 m/s wind speed”: What is the measurement level for this wind speed value? Please indicate here.
L. 187 ~ L. 194: Please indicate whether the radiation sensors are ventilated or not.
L. 189 ~ L. 190, “shortwave and longwave radiation wavelengths”: Please indicate the wavelength range quantitatively.
Figure 6: Albedo data contains some obvious outliers (albedo > 1.0). These outliers and simultaneous downward and upward shortwave radiations should be masked. Another option is to lower the threshold value for the solar zenith angle (currently set at 80°).
Figure 11: Levels (depths) of the snow density profile measurements should be indicated in the caption.
Figure 14: Like the case for albedo (Fig. 6), the presented surface meteorological data contains some obvious errors (spikes), which should be masked in my humble opinion.
Technical corrections
L. 65: It seems to me that Table 1 is not mentioned in the running text.L. 69 ~ L. 70: Is the description “from the topmost 50 m of the snowpack” correct?
L. 89: “found” is better than “resulted”?
Figure 1: An explanation of the red square in the map for the entire Antarctic ice sheet is needed. Also, please describe the satellite data used to show background topography in this figure.
Figure 2: Please consider indicating the date when this picture was taken.
Table 2: When Table 2 is first referred to in the running text (L. 127), CM11 has not yet been introduced. Therefore, in the caption, a detailed description of CM11 should be provided.
L. 150, “(Fig. 3b)”: It is better to indicate it at the end of this sentence, in my humble opinion.
Figure 5a: Same as the comment on Table 2. Figure 5 is referred to in the running text before the explanation of CM11 is provided.
L. 227: “Fig. 5d” -> “Fig. 5a”?
Figure 6: “shortwave” must be indicated in the caption.
Figure 7: Time zone should be indicated in the upper panel of Fig. 7b.
L. 235: “(Fig. 5c)” -> “(Fig. 5d)”
Figure 8g: It seems to me that the cross section of the snow sample in the density cutter is not flat (this is an example of measurement failure). I recommend replacing the figure if possible.
L. 252, “grain size”: Please specify whether it is geometric snow grain size or optical snow grain size.
L. 254, “SEAR”: It seems to me that its definition is missing in the running text.
Figure 12 caption: “snow surface temperature (red) and air temperature (light red)” -> something like “snow surface temperature (red circles) and air temperature (light red solid line)”
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2059-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Leena Leppänen, 29 Aug 2025
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 681 | 102 | 22 | 805 | 34 | 44 |
- HTML: 681
- PDF: 102
- XML: 22
- Total: 805
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 44
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Antero Kukko
Aleksi Rimali
Aku Riihelä
Priit Tisler
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(1806 KB) - Metadata XML
General comments:
This manuscript reports on the field activities of the Finnish Antarctic Research Programme (FINNARP) 2022 expedition, conducted during the 2022–2023 summer season at the Finnish Aboa station in Dronning Maud Land, Western Antarctica. The measurements included continuous meteorological observations at the automatic weather station (AWS), snow pit studies, ground-based and drone-based radiation measurements, and snow surface roughness observations using a laser scanner both from a drone and on the ground. Drone-based measurements using a laser scanner, a hyperspectral camera, and a pyranometer were performed in synchronization with overpasses of the IceSat-2 and CryoSat-2 satellites. The manuscript clearly describes the activities carried out.
I understand that this type of field report by Antarctic research programs is often published as a technical report by the respective programs or institutions. In order for this manuscript to be published in GI, it would be better to highlight new insights related to novel instrumentation, improved observation methods, or innovative combinations of existing techniques. I feel that the current manuscript lacks this aspect. Snow and meteorological observations have been conducted around this station in the past. Is drone-based observation a new feature of this expedition?
Additionally, the authors should clearly state the scientific purpose of this observation program and indicate whether sufficient data were obtained to achieve that purpose. These points are not adequately addressed in the current Introduction and Conclusion.
I suggest that the editor request a major revision of the manuscript from the authors.
Specific comments:
L29-37: “Aboa is located … (to the end of this paragraph)” This part describes about field measurements. So, these sentences should be moved in Chapter 2.
L76: “so that” I don’t understand the causal relationship before and after this term.
L106-107: “Some diurnal variations were found with the lowest albedos being in the mornings and in the evenings” This is opposite property to the general solar zenith angle dependence of albedo. Please explain the possible cause.
L118: “Aim of this paper is to describe the data set collected during the FINNARP 2022 expedition…” Please describe the scientific purpose of this expedition. In particular, it would be useful to compare the results with past observations and explain what is new and what should be continued.
L121: “2 Field measurements” I suggest adding a table that lists the instruments used for this observation, along with their basic specifications.
L147: “QGroundControl” It should be added a reference or a description that explains what this product is.
L191: “… Fig. 6.” Please explain why some albedos are beyond 1.0.
L222: “Example of hyperspectral camera data” Please indicate what kind of physical quantities is ‘Example’?
L235: “a portable ASD Field Spec Pro Jr. spectroradiometer” I suggest adding a figure showing examples of spectral albedo if it is important for the purpose of this research program.
L254: “SEAR” I don't know if this is a commonly used abbreviation. It would be helpful to explain it.
L288-289: “indicating that surface snow SSA is influenced by grain size, grain type, and liquid water content, in addition to density.” I think that there is not shown sufficient evidence to make such a definitive statement.
L295: In Figure 9, the observed snow stratigraphy appears to have remained stable during the period indicated by the vertical lines. The results of each measurement should be shown in a bar graph for the days on which the observations were made.
L314-318: I suggest adding a table summarizing the AWS sensors and their specifications. It would also be helpful for readers to show the picture of the AWS.
L321-322: “Jumps in the sensor distance from the snow surface potentially originate from ice or snow accumulation to the sensor or wind drift to the measured area.” Please briefly describe what quality control (QC) have been (or will be) performed, or cite references if they have already been published. It would be helpful to have a summary explanation of QC for other AWS observation data as well.
L329: “4 Conclusion” Please indicate whether sufficient data were obtained to achieve that scientific purpose of this research program.
L330-331: “Surface roughness is one of the most important parameters affecting retrieval of satellite data from Antarctica but it is still studied little and typically only over small areas.” This sentence should be mentioned after explaining the overall summary of the following sentences.
Technical corrections:
L52: Please correct “accumulation is strongest” to “accumulation is most abundant”.
L155: “3 cm data spacing” Is it a spatial resolution?
L166: Figure 4: Both a distance scale bar and a color scale bar are needed in the figure.
L209: Please correct “smaller” to “shorter”.
L254: Please correct “Grains” to “Snow grains”.
L255: “…and 1, 2, 4, 6, 10, 15 and 20 cm below surface” Please add “snow at” before the figures of snow depth.
L258: “Specific surface area (SSA)” Please add “of snow grains” after “(SSA)”.
L274: Please correct “was” to “were”.
L300: Figs. 10, 11, and 13: Uniform units are not used in the figures and text. For example, SSA unit is “m2 kg-1” in the figures, but “m2/kg” in the text.
L301: Please correct “SSA from the snow surface” to “SSA measured at the snow surface”
L304: “Figure 11: Snow density profile (black) and surface measurements (red)” This caption is somewhat unclear. Do authors mean the snow density values at the surface (red) and vertical distribution values at subsurface depths (black)?
L306: “Figure 12: Liquid water content from snow surface (black), snow surface temperature (red) and air temperature (light red)” Please correct “(black)”, “(red)” and “(light red)” to “(black dots)”, “(red dots)” and “(light red curve)”, respectively.