the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Comparing 3 m resolution snow cover downscaled from MODIS, VIIRS, and HLS using commercial satellite imagery and terrain information
Abstract. The fine scale distribution of snow is important for avalanche forecasting and biological refugia. Here, we test how historical context provided by 3 m snow cover observations derived from PlanetScope commercial satellite imagery could be used to downscale fractional snow covered area (fSCA) observed by the MODerate resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS), Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS), and the Harmonized Landsat and Sentinel-2 (HLS) product using previously published approaches. We evaluate this over Colorado and California montane meadows using 1) probabilistic snow cover maps, and 2) random forest machine learning models. We then compare versus a downscaling benchmark that relies only on terrain characteristics, eliminating the need for PlanetScope observations. Provided these three approaches, downscaling snow cover using random forest models performed best on average, largely because these models corrected annually consistent snow cover biases between PlanetScope and coarser resolution fSCA observations. The approach used to downscale influenced 3 m snow cover most, followed closely by the accuracy of the fSCA estimate that snow cover was downscaled from. Snow cover downscaled from HLS using only terrain indices was often similar or better than snow cover downscaled from MODIS and VIIRS using context from PlanetScope. This demonstrates how a limited historical record of commercial satellite observations can be used to estimate the fine-scale pattern of snow cover in many regions, but also when publicly accessible remote sensing retrievals and information about the terrain may obviate the need for commercial observations.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of The Cryosphere.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(14152 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(14333 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4850', Moritz Oberrauch, 22 Sep 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-4850', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 Oct 2026
This article compares various methods to downscale satellite snow cover (SC) map (30 m Harmonized Landsat-Sentinel to 500 m MODIS) to 3 m resolution matching the PlanetScope imagery. The benefits of increasing the complexity of the downscaling approach and of including external satellite products are evaluated. As the last sentence of the abstract nails it : downscaling of MODIS-VIIRS products with random forest trained on PlanetScope derived SC map is often equivalent to downscaling of Landsat-Sentinel SC maps with simpler probabilistic approach.
The article is quite methodological, rather dense with results which are meticulously presented. The discussion brings interesting points about the resolution and the scale of the snowpack variability. In general, the work provides precise guidance for future application of such downscaling.
Â
L24 Is the sentence grammatically correct? I do not understand how « but also when... » connects with the previous part of the sentence.
Â
L24 Why « in many regions » ? Could it be deleted ?
Weird grammar
Â
L25 « may » => « can »
Â
L27 The introduction is well written and presents well the context of SC maps downscaling. I only wonder if such downscaling approaches has been actually used in other works as a way to produce high-resolution SC maps before using them as input for the rest of the work.If such works exists, please highlight them.
Â
L30 « species » twice, redundant.
Â
L34 « Information about the distribution of snow cover and snow structure at footprints relative to wind-driven » this is not completely clear (for a non-native speaker)
Â
L50 This review article could be of interest for this introduction :
Gascoin S, Luojus K, Nagler T, Lievens H, Masiokas M, Jonas T, Zheng Z and De Rosnay P (2024) Remote sensing of mountain snow from space: status and recommendations. Front. Earth Sci. 12:1381323. doi: 10.3389/feart.2024.1381323
Â
L122 About VIIRS images : explain somewhere why the pixels appear as tilted diamonds (Fig. 3 and 6.)
Â
L154 « changes of in performance » ?
Â
L160 « While using PS snow cover... » Long complicated sentence, maybe reword of cut it in two. Besides, the last part is a loop thinking : ...the high accuracy of these snow cover maps...make these retrievals a high benchmark for accuracy.
Â
L235 « the frequency of snow cover observed at that location, divided by the number of PS observations (Fig. 2c).» frequency should already be the ratio between the number of a given event divided by the total number of events. This sentence suggests that frequency is divided by total number of event.
Â
L291 Maybe state the code name of the basins around L106. These information are only in the legend of Fig. 1 at the moment.
Â
L293 « This parameter set implicitly reflected the terrain roughness » not clear, maybe add commas to structure the sentence ? Or rephrase.
Â
L446 « by any other study to date » cite the resolution of the other studies, of some at least.
Â
L450 « While the accuracy of downscaled snow cover varied by the domain and year, accuracies generally increased with increases toin the informative power of the inputs used for the three downscaling approaches tested here. »
Â
L476 « HLS was often capable of viewing the pattern of snow cover from PS much more explicitly than MODIS » Weird phrasing. It sounds like the patterns are a property of PS but they are actually an objective natural object. Maybe something along : « HLS and PS were often capable of viewing pattern with a similar level of details/similar scale, closer to the true scale of pattern than MODIS »
Â
L477 « footprint » Could it be deleted here ? Looking up this term earlier in the article, I am getting confused. Here, it could mean « pixel » but earlier it sounds like a synonym for image acquisition ? Besides, I guess that all the acquisitions were clipped to a common footprint ? It may be stated more clearly in the methods.
Â
L477 « viewed total or nearly full (fSCA near 1.0) or snow absent (fSCA near 0.0) conditions more frequently » is not easy to understand, especially « total or nearly full» pixels ? Conditions ? Maybe the concept of mixed-pixel can be helpful here.
Â
L481 « While the goals of this study were to downscale snow cover to 3 m resolutions, the spatial autocorrelations also suggests that a lot of the snow cover information could be captured by downscaling to resolutions coarser than PS observations using HLS snow cover if 30 m snow cover is sufficient (e.g., Figs. S14 and S15). » This sentence suggest to downscale at 30 m resolution or at a resolution between 3 m and 30 m ? State clearly.
Â
L488 « a higher frequency of full snow cover or total snow absence at fine scale (30 – 40 m) » why mention 40 m here ? Never used before, is it in Selkowitz et al. (2014) ?
Â
Figure 3. Maybe add as text in each subset, a metric showing the quality of the fit of the downscaled map with the reference (F1 and/or k). Discontinuity at the border of low-resolution pixel (north of all maps) could be commented somewhere. Any guidance to improve the method and avoid this ?
Â
Figure 4. Right column : the colored line is the average of all domain ? And the transparent thine line are individual domains ? For the latter, the weight is not represented in the line type, is it ? Please complete the caption.
Â
Figure 5. No need to modify all the boxplots figures but a consideration for future work : I find it disturbing to show outliers as distinct points from the boxplots. In this case, they are defined implicitly by the plotting library. Actually, they are part of the distribution. I suggest that the box and whiskers show exact percentile of the complete sample, for example 5th, 25th, 75th, and 95th percentiles.
Â
Figure 7. To be improved a bit. Hatch may not be necessary, it is impossible to see what is below the hatch on the map.
Â
Figure S13. I was about to say that the figure should be improved (GIN-HLS completely black plot with a fit through it is almost funny!) but this figure do not seem to be referenced in the text. To be deleted ?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-4850-RC2
Data sets
Pflug et al. (2024) -- Processed data and model outputs Justin M. Pflug https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/93eb530b29a445e1a7e73691b6e341d1/
Pflug et al. downscaled snow cover maps and terrain data Justin M. Pflug https://www.hydroshare.org/resource/fc2abc98881c4ea0a5e84856f3f5c09a/
Model code and software
downscalingUtilities Justin M. Pflug https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17516632
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 169 | 93 | 64 | 326 | 61 | 68 | 64 |
- HTML: 169
- PDF: 93
- XML: 64
- Total: 326
- Supplement: 61
- BibTeX: 68
- EndNote: 64
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please find my review in the attached document.