the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Determining TTOP model parameter importance and overall performance across northern Canada
Abstract. Modelling current permafrost distribution and response to a warming climate depends on understanding which factors most strongly control ground temperatures. The Temperature at the Top of Permafrost (TTOP) model provides a simple, widely used framework for estimating permafrost presence and thermal state, yet its sensitivity to key parameters remains poorly quantified across diverse northern environments. This study evaluates the relative influence of TTOP model parameters using ground and air temperature data from 330 sites across northern Canada. A leave – one – out cross-validation approach combined with random forest analysis was used to assess both model sensitivity and variable importance. Results show that TTOP performance is dominated by freezing-season conditions—particularly the freezing n-factor and freezing degree days—while thaw-season parameters exert less control. Sensitivity patterns vary by region, with thawing parameters becoming more influential where the duration of the freezing and thawing seasons is similar. Machine-learning results highlight the additional importance of thermal offset and mean surface temperatures, emphasizing the importance of substrate properties. While the model generally reproduces observed ground temperatures well, parameters derived from landcover classes were not transferable between sites, underscoring the importance of locally calibrated inputs. Overall, this study clarifies how different climatic and environmental factors shape the accuracy of permafrost temperature modelling and provides practical guidance for improving parameterization in regional and global permafrost models.
- Preprint
(1694 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(426 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 30 Dec 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4478', Anonymous Referee #1, 24 Nov 2025
reply
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Philip Bonnaventure, 25 Nov 2025
reply
Thank you for your review and constructive comments, this is much appreciated. We look forward to continuing to improve the paper towards publication.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-4478-CC1
-
CC1: 'Reply on RC1', Philip Bonnaventure, 25 Nov 2025
reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 178 | 50 | 22 | 250 | 25 | 9 | 10 |
- HTML: 178
- PDF: 50
- XML: 22
- Total: 250
- Supplement: 25
- BibTeX: 9
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General Comment
This manuscript presents a rigorous and data-rich evaluation of the Temperature at the Top of Permafrost (TTOP) model, combining a deterministic sensitivity analysis with a random forest variable-importance approach. Using air and ground temperature data from 330 sites across northern Canada, the authors assess how key TTOP parameters (n-factors, degree days, and the thermal conductivity ratio) influence model performance and transferability. The integration of empirical sensitivity testing with machine-learning diagnostics represents a methodological advance in permafrost modelling using the TTOP approach.
The paper is well structured, methodologically sound, and clearly written. The combination of analytical and data-driven approaches is innovative. The study provides valuable empirical evidence on parameter importance and offers practical recommendations for improving permafrost model parameterization. Overall, this is a high-quality contribution deserving publication after a few corrections based on my comments below.
Specific comments
Abstract
- It would help to clarify whether leave-one-out cross-validation applies to the random forest or the sensitivity analysis.
- Including a performance metric (for instance the RMSE reported later) could strengthen the abstract.
- “Changing climate” may be a more neutral term than “warming climate.”
- The final sentence could more clearly underline the novelty of the pan-Canadian empirical assessment.
Introduction
L68: Minor typo (“A of the primary challenge”).
L68–75: The knowledge gap could be stated more explicitly, especially regarding the relative importance of nf, nt, and rk across regions.
L89–105: The random forest paragraph is somewhat general; a shorter description tied directly to the study aims might improve flow.
L106–111: The objectives could be phrased to highlight the combined use of sensitivity analysis and machine-learning-derived importance.
Methods
L205: A brief rationale for using percentile substitution would clarify this choice.
L215–225: The target variable used in the RF models is worth specifying.
L226–235: Commenting on RF repeatability and possible predictor correlations would strengthen this section.
L236–241: Listing the performance metrics used (RMSE, bias, R²) and whether they are per site or per site-year would aid transparency.
Results
L242–252: Adding mean ± SD to Table 4 would contextualize the percentile ranges.
L296–307: Clarify whether the importance values are averaged across sites or regions, and consider noting the correlation between TO and rk.
L322–331: A simple correlation (e.g., Spearman) between sensitivity and RF rankings could help compare approaches.
L332–341: The validation could be complemented with R² or NSE, and a brief note on the permafrost classification criterion.
Discussion and Conclusions
L351–366: A short explanation of why nf dominates (snow–air coupling) could enhance clarity.
L387–406: A bit more context on why TO and rk rank highly in RF, including their correlation, would aid interpretation.
L437–463: The uncertainty section is strong; providing the correlation matrix and distinguishing sensitivity from statistical importance could add clarity.