the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Advancing snow data assimilation with a dynamic observation uncertainty
Abstract. Seasonal snow is a critical resource for society by providing water for billions, supporting agriculture, clean energy, and tourism, and is an important element within the climate system by influencing the global energy balance. However, accurately quantifying snow mass, particularly in mountainous regions, remains a challenge due to substantial observational and modeling limitations. As such, data assimilation (DA) offers a powerful solution by integrating observations with physically-based models to improve estimates of the snowpack. Previous snow DA studies have employed an Ensemble Kalman Filter (EnKF) to assimilate Sentinel-1 satellite-based snow depth retrievals, demonstrating improved accuracy in modeled snow depth, mass, and streamflow when evaluated against in-situ measurements. In those studies, the uncertainty of the assimilated retrievals was assumed to be static in time and space, likely leading to a suboptimal use of the observational information. Here, we present several advances in snow DA. Using an EnKF, we assimilate novel snow depth retrievals derived from a machine learning product that leverages Sentinel-1 backscatter observations, land cover, and topographic information over the European Alps. We also incorporate a spatiotemporally dynamic observation error, whereby the uncertainty of the assimilated snow depth retrieval varies in space and time with snow depth. The machine learning snow depth retrieval product is assimilated into the Noah-MP land surface model over the entire European Alps at 1 km resolution for the years 2015–2023 and snow depth, snow water equivalent, and snow cover are evaluated against independent in-situ data and satellite observations. This work demonstrates the benefits of machine learning based snow depth retrievals and dynamic observation errors in EnKF-based snow DA.
- Preprint
(14609 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(7013 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2306', Anonymous Referee #1, 26 Jun 2025
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Devon Dunmire, 12 Aug 2025
Hello, thank you for the thorough review! I am curious if this reviewer could provide a some more information for clarification.
1) Could the reviewer please provide the specific DOIs of the manuscripts referenced in the review? For instance, Alonso-González et al. (2024) is referenced when discussing the computation costs of various DA algorithms, but I am wondering if this should not be the 2022 MuSA manuscript instead?
Many thanks in advance!
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2306-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Devon Dunmire, 12 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2306', Anonymous Referee #2, 08 Aug 2025
This manuscript performs an assimilation experiment over the European Alps to investigate several advances to the modeling and assimilation scheme. Specifically, they consider the assimilation of a snow depth machine learning product based on Sentinel-1 observations and the development of a dynamic observation error for their Ensemble Kalman Filter setup. I find this study to be very compelling with interesting results, and I only have a few minor comments.
- Are the snow depth ML estimates available everywhere and thus assimilated everywhere or are there flags to exclude assimilation in higher uncertainty areas where SAR does not perform well, like dense forests?
- How representative are the in situ observations of the surrounding ~1km to match the modeled grid?
- Are there any spatial datasets, like lidar, for evaluating modeled snow depth over a broader area?
- In Figure 2b, the OL performs better than either DA scenario compared to the in situ, though DAvar performs better than DAconst. Is this similar behavior in other locations where the initial OL estimate is already close to the in situ truth?
- How does the DA perform when snow needs to be added to the system? Figure 2a shows the DA reducing the modeled snow down to match the observations. Though in later results, it appears that DA mostly reduces snow in the model.
- Lines 226-230: You mentioned that some of the increases in MAE at higher elevations could be due to limitations in the model during the melt season or biases from the assimilation. In your results, do you find that DA tends to add to remove snow at the higher elevations? How does the ML snow depth product perform at higher elevations where I assume the snow is deeper.
- Figure 4e: Do you have an idea why DAvar degrades performance around peak accumulation for the 2000-2500 m elevation band? Aside from that line, it appears like DAvar improves upon DAconst for each elevation band throughout the winter
- Figure 5: It appears like the modeled SWE almost reaches an asymptote around 600-700mm of SWE. Any ideas why the model is underestimating at the deepest SWE values?
- Figure 7: The difference plot for DAvar is much jumpier than that from DAconst. Can you explain that? Does DAvar have more ephemeral snow that comes and goes throughout the winter and spring? I assume much of that is from low elevation snow?
- Lines 264-268: Do you have any time series with snow cover comparisons to IMS or Copernicus?
- Figure 8: Does it make more sense to have the y axes on these plots be the percentage of sites within each elevation band so it is easier to compare against 25%, 50%, etc of sites?
- Lines 307-320: I think this would be better in the methods. It feels odd to introduce a new dataset in the discussion section.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2306-RC2
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
374 | 80 | 12 | 466 | 22 | 10 | 21 |
- HTML: 374
- PDF: 80
- XML: 12
- Total: 466
- Supplement: 22
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1