the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Evaluation of Wet Snow Dielectric Mixing Models for L-Band Radiometric Measurement of Liquid Water Content in Greenland’s Percolation Zone
Abstract. Determining the effective permittivity of snow and firn is essential for the accurate estimation of liquid water amount (LWA). Here, we compare ten commonly used microwave dielectric mixing models for estimating LWA in snow and firn using L-band radiometry. We specifically focus on the percolation zone of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS), where the average volume fraction of liquid water is approximately 6 percent. We used L-band brightness temperature (TB) observations from the NASA Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission in an inversion-based framework to estimate LWA, applying different dielectric mixing formulations in forward simulation. We compared the permittivities of the mixing models over a range of conditions and their impact on the LWA retrieval. We also compared the LWA retrievals to the corresponding LWA from two state-of-the-art Surface Energy and Mass Balance (SEMB) models. Both SEMB models were forced with in situ measurements from automatic weather stations (AWS) of the Programme for Monitoring of the Greenland Ice Sheet (PROMICE) and Greenland Climate Network (GC-Net) located in the percolation zone of the GrIS and initialized with relevant in situ profiles of density, stratigraphy, and sub-surface temperature measurements. The results show that the mixing models produce substantially different real and imaginary parts of the dielectric constant. The choice of mixing model has a significant impact on the LWA retrieved from the TB. The correspondence with the SEMB LWA varied by model and site; the Sihvola power-law based mixing model showed an overall better performance than the other models for 2023 melt season. The analysis facilitates an appropriate choice of dielectric mixing model on the LWA retrieval algorithm.
- Preprint
(2213 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2681', Anonymous Referee #1, 02 Aug 2025
Overall Review
The article provides a comparison between 10 different wet-snow dielectric mixing models and how the choice can influence the retrievals of liquid water content at L-band frequency. The study was conducted for Greenland’s percolation zone, utilizing SMAP (rSIR) brightness temperature and two in-situ forced surface-energy mass balance models to assess robustness. The combination of models and satellite observations is unique and novel, and answers an important question about the choice of wet-snow dielectric models for the estimation of liquid water amount. The manuscript is generally well organized and richly referenced, but a careful read reveals several minor errors that should be addressed before publication.
Major Strengths & Novelty
- First side-by-side comprehensive comparison of ten-dielectric formulations (Debye-like, power-law, empirical, etc.) explicitly focused on the retrieval of LWC.
- Link to operational satellite – SMAP rSIR Tbs
- Quantitative assessments against the surface energy models.
Specific Questions and Technical Errors
- Abstract – “Sihvola power-law mixing model showed an overall better performance than the other models for the 2023 melt season” – consider including metrics.
- Which SMAP product was used (rSIR) can be mentioned in the introduction, in the last paragraph.
- Duplicate equation number (for eq. 8 – mentioned at L137 and L155), and then subsequent equation numbers should be changed.
- Typo in L273 Ks<<Ks, instead of Ks<<Ka.
- Methods – The Hallikainen model was derived at 3-37 GHz; authors can justify its usage/extrapolation to 1.4GHz
- Typo – Table 1: Key Parameters – “Depolarizaion” should be “Depolarization”.
- Sihvola, misspelled at L99, L123, L166 as Sihivola.
- Eq 20 refers to both e-folding depth and attenuation coefficient.
- Hallikainen et. al. 1984 (L344) is not mentioned in the bibliography; are the authors referring to Hallikainen et. al. 1986? If so, the date should be changed.
- I suggest making the zoomed-in version on the right in Fig. 2
- L427 “The Colbeck model provides the lowest estimates for the entire LWA range,” referencing Fig. 4. However, in Fig. 4f, the Colbeck model appears to provide a higher estimate than Hallikainen. (A zoomed-in inset for Figs. 4, and 5,6 would be helpful).
- Table 3 GEMB column is missing.
- Line 550, “All three methods…”, is it referring to Fig.9?
- Can include a plot of observed and simulated tb, to check the loss.
- Line 885 (+more) Miller, J.Z. has year 2020a, but 2020b is missing, I see that at Line 897 Miller, O., et. al, has the year 2020b. but no corresponding 2020a.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2681-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Alamgir Hossan, 08 Aug 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2681', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Aug 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alamgir Hossan, 08 Aug 2025
-
EC1: 'Reply on AC2', Lars Kaleschke, 11 Aug 2025
Dear Author,
Thank you for your prompt response to the referees. I have one quick follow-up regarding this passage:
To account for these effects without introducing multiple uncertain parameters, we chose to model the combined reflective impact of the complex firn stratigraphy using an equivalent dielectric slab with a tuned permittivity (real part), following the approach already introduced in Mousavi et al. (2022).
I looked up the reference for the definition of the permittivity, but the tables in Mousavi et al. (2022) refer only to Ulaby and Long (2014). While I greatly admire this book, I cannot identify the relevant definition from it, the equation or page number is missing. A general reference to such a comprehensive volume is not sufficient in this case.
Therefore, I am not yet satisfied with your answer. Could you please provide the exact equations?
Best regards,
Lars KaleschkeCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2681-EC1 -
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Alamgir Hossan, 12 Aug 2025
Dear Editor,
Thank you for your question. Mousavi et al. (2022) modeled the dielectric constants of medium 2 (wet snow) and medium 4 (semi-infinite dry snow) in a four-layer configuration using the formulations of Ulaby and Long (2014, Chapter 4, pp. 140–145, Eq. 4.55 – 4.61). However, they explicitly prescribed the complex dielectric constant of medium 3 (the highly reflective layer) as 3.5 – 9j. For details, please refer to Table II in Mousavi et al. (2022), where the layer properties of the four-layer model are listed (corresponding to the Fig. 3b where the semi-infinite air medium was considered as a separate layer).
While we follow a similar modeling approach, we use different values for the complex dielectric constant of the reflective layer (ε2 = εr – 0.0002j), as we consider such high absorption (caused by loss factor 9j) to be unlikely in dry snow. Instead, we hypothesize that successive reflection caused by complex stratigraphy is the dominant mechanism. Therefore, we tune the real part of to match the simulated and observed brightness temperatures at each grid point during the frozen season.
Sincerely,
Alamgir Hossan (on behalf of the authors)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2681-AC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on AC3', Alamgir Hossan, 12 Aug 2025
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2025-2681/egusphere-2025-2681-AC4-supplement.pdf
-
AC4: 'Reply on AC3', Alamgir Hossan, 12 Aug 2025
-
AC3: 'Reply on EC1', Alamgir Hossan, 12 Aug 2025
-
EC1: 'Reply on AC2', Lars Kaleschke, 11 Aug 2025
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Alamgir Hossan, 08 Aug 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
368 | 52 | 15 | 435 | 8 | 10 |
- HTML: 368
- PDF: 52
- XML: 15
- Total: 435
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1