the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Systematic Analysis of Rain-on-Snow Events and Their Trends in the French Alps: Distinguishing All and Impactful Events across Mountain Ranges
Abstract. Rain-on-snow (ROS) events are a major hydrometeorological phenomenon in mountainous regions, as the combination of liquid precipitation and snowmelt enhances flood hazard. This study provides the first systematic analysis of ROS events in the French Alps at high temporal and spatial resolution, based on the S2M reanalysis (1958–2024) with an hourly time step. By combining meteorological data with an event database of torrential floods and landslides, ROS events are explicitly linked to observed impacts. Averaged over space, 5.5 ROS events occurred per year in the French Alps over 1958–2024, with a clear contrast between the more frequently affected north-western mountain ranges and the south-eastern ones. Seasonality strongly depends on elevation, with ROS events occurring mainly in winter at lower elevations and in spring at higher elevations. Impactful ROS events, associated with torrential floods or landslides, are characterized by high cumulative rainfall and long durations. Above 76 mm of cumulative rainfall, the probability that a ROS event is impactful exceeds 50 %, defining heavy-rainfall ROS events. Trend analyses reveal a marked decline in overall ROS occurrence (-22 %) between 1959–1988 and 1995–2024, primarily in spring and early summer due to a shortening of the snow season, while increases are observed in December and January as precipitation more frequently falls as rain. Heavy-rainfall ROS events show a more moderate decrease (-9 %), with declining trends in most southern mountain ranges but increases in several northern ones. They now predominantly occur in early winter at lower elevations, which are more densely populated, making them more likely to produce damaging impacts. The next step in this systematic approach would be to create a watershed-based subdivision of the French Alps to enable comprehensive hydrological analyses of ROS events.
- Preprint
(8299 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2497', Konstantis Alexopoulos, 27 Aug 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2497', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Aug 2026
This manuscript presents an interesting and worthwhile analysis of rain-on-snow (ROS) events and their impacts. The topic is highly relevant, and the study provides valuable insights into the relationship between ROS events and associated hazards. The methodology appears generally sound, and the manuscript is generally well written. I particularly appreciate that the authors consider multiple variables to explain the observed patterns and trends, which strengthens the scientific value of the study.
I believe this work has the potential to make a useful contribution to the literature. However, several aspects of the manuscript would benefit from clarification and improved organization before publication. Most of my comments relate to the presentation of the methods and the overall organization of the analysis rather than to the scientific approach itself. I hope the authors find the following suggestions helpful.
Major Comments
1. Clarify the Methods section
The Methods section would benefit from further clarification. Currently, some methodological details appear in the Results section, while other analysis steps are not described in sufficient detail.
- Lines 243-255 contain methodological information that should be moved to the Methods section.
- It is not fully clear what is meant by: "rain events", "precipitation events", and "snow cover days" (line 277). Please define these terms and explain how they are calculated. In addition, please clarify why these variables are included in the analysis and what additional information they provide regarding ROS events.
- Please justify the choice of the 50% threshold (line 229).
- Please specify the method used for trend calculation.
- Please clarify why both SWE and SD were used to define ROS events (line 173).
2. The analysis period (1958-2024 and 2001-2024)
It is not clear which analyses were conducted for the period 1958-2024 and which were conducted for 2001-2024. In Sect. 3.3 (starting from line 207) and Sect. 3.4, you refer to the period 2001-2024, whereas in the Results (e.g. lines 274, 309, and 351) you refer to 1958-2024. I found this difficult to follow. Please clarify the rationale for using different analysis periods and indicate clearly which analyses correspond to each period.
3. Role of snowmelt
The manuscript states that snowmelt combined with liquid precipitation enhances flood hazards. However, the analysis focuses primarily on precipitation characteristics, while the role of snowmelt is not explicitly examined. Since snowmelt is highlighted as an important process, I encourage the authors to discuss its role more clearly. If snowmelt was not considered in the analysis, it would be helpful to explain this choice and discuss how it may affect the interpretation of the results. At a minimum, the potential contribution of snowmelt should be addressed in the Discussion section.
Minor Comments
Title: Consider removing the phrase "systematic analysis of".
Line 3: Please define S2M when first introduced.
Line 66: Please define RTM when first introduced.
Line 94: ERA-40 is not a numerical weather model but a reanalysis.
Section 2.4: The discussion of limitations is useful and important, but the section feels somewhat long. Consider shortening some parts to improve readability.
Figure 2: Consider adding temperature to the figure.
Line 234: Do you mean the trends in number of ROS events? Please clarify.
Line 198: It would be useful to briefly discuss avalanches in the Discussion section, even though they are not included in the analysis.
Line 204: The statement that the data "indicate good quality" appears to be a result and should be moved to the Results section.
Figure 9b caption: Instead of using "x", please use the name of the actual variable.
Line 340: Consider replacing "as announced" with "as described".
Lines 340-359: I found this section somewhat difficult to follow. Consider improving the flow and adding clearer transitions between ideas.
Section 5.4 heading: Consider renaming this section to "Limitations of the study".
Please clarify what is the difference between “RTM” and “RTM-DB”?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2497-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 113 | 93 | 18 | 224 | 17 | 13 |
- HTML: 113
- PDF: 93
- XML: 18
- Total: 224
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please see my comments in the .pdf attached.