Evaluation of forest snow processes models (SnowMIP2)

Nick Rutter, Richard Essery, John Pomeroy, Nuria Altimir, Kostas Andreadis, Ian Baker, Alan Barr, Paul Bartlett, Aaron Boone, Huiping Deng, Hervé Douville, Emanuel Dutra, Kelly Elder, Chad Ellis, Xia Feng, Alexander Gelfan, Angus Goodbody, Yeugeniy Gusev, David Gustafsson, Rob HellströmYukiko Hirabayashi, Tomoyoshi Hirota, Tobias Jonas, Victor Koren, Anna Kuragina, Dennis Lettenmaier, Wei Ping Li, Charlie Luce, Eric Martin, Olga Nasonova, Jukka Pumpanen, R. David Pyles, Patrick Samuelsson, Melody Sandells, Gerd Schädler, Andrey Shmakin, Tatiana G. Smirnova, Manfred Stähli, Reto Stöckli, Ulrich Strasser, Hua Su, Kazuyoshi Suzuki, Kumiko Takata, Kenji Tanaka, Erin Thompson, Timo Vesala, Pedro Viterbo, Andrew Wiltshire, Kun Xia, Yongkang Xue, Takeshi Yamazaki

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

198 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Thirty-three snowpack models of varying complexity and purpose were evaluated across a wide range of hydrometeorological and forest canopy conditions at five Northern Hemisphere locations, for up to two winter snow seasons. Modeled estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) or depth were compared to observations at forest and open sites at each location. Precipitation phase and duration of above-freezing air temperatures are shown to be major influences on divergence and convergence of modeled estimates of the subcanopy snowpack: When models are considered collectively at all locations, comparisons with observations show that it is harder to model SWE at forested sites than open sites. There is no universal "best" model for all sites or locations, but comparison of the consistency of individual model performances relative to one another at different sites shows that there is less consistency at forest sites than open sites, and even less consistency between forest and open sites in the same year. A good performance by a model at a forest site is therefore unlikely to mean a good model performance by the same model at an open site (and vice versa). Calibration of models at forest sites provides lower errors than uncalibrated models at three out of four locations. However, benefits of calibration do not ' translate to subsequent years, and benefits gained by models calibrated for forest snow processes are not translated to open conditions.

Original languageEnglish
JournalJournal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres
Volume114
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2009 Mar 27
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

snow
Snow
evaluation
snow water equivalent
snowpack
calibration
Calibration
canopies
Water
forest canopy
Northern Hemisphere
estimates
Freezing
freezing
winter
water
divergence
air temperature
duration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geophysics
  • Forestry
  • Oceanography
  • Aquatic Science
  • Ecology
  • Water Science and Technology
  • Soil Science
  • Geochemistry and Petrology
  • Earth-Surface Processes
  • Atmospheric Science
  • Space and Planetary Science
  • Earth and Planetary Sciences (miscellaneous)
  • Palaeontology

Cite this

Rutter, N., Essery, R., Pomeroy, J., Altimir, N., Andreadis, K., Baker, I., ... Yamazaki, T. (2009). Evaluation of forest snow processes models (SnowMIP2). Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 114(6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011063

Evaluation of forest snow processes models (SnowMIP2). / Rutter, Nick; Essery, Richard; Pomeroy, John; Altimir, Nuria; Andreadis, Kostas; Baker, Ian; Barr, Alan; Bartlett, Paul; Boone, Aaron; Deng, Huiping; Douville, Hervé; Dutra, Emanuel; Elder, Kelly; Ellis, Chad; Feng, Xia; Gelfan, Alexander; Goodbody, Angus; Gusev, Yeugeniy; Gustafsson, David; Hellström, Rob; Hirabayashi, Yukiko; Hirota, Tomoyoshi; Jonas, Tobias; Koren, Victor; Kuragina, Anna; Lettenmaier, Dennis; Li, Wei Ping; Luce, Charlie; Martin, Eric; Nasonova, Olga; Pumpanen, Jukka; Pyles, R. David; Samuelsson, Patrick; Sandells, Melody; Schädler, Gerd; Shmakin, Andrey; Smirnova, Tatiana G.; Stähli, Manfred; Stöckli, Reto; Strasser, Ulrich; Su, Hua; Suzuki, Kazuyoshi; Takata, Kumiko; Tanaka, Kenji; Thompson, Erin; Vesala, Timo; Viterbo, Pedro; Wiltshire, Andrew; Xia, Kun; Xue, Yongkang; Yamazaki, Takeshi.

In: Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, Vol. 114, No. 6, 27.03.2009.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rutter, N, Essery, R, Pomeroy, J, Altimir, N, Andreadis, K, Baker, I, Barr, A, Bartlett, P, Boone, A, Deng, H, Douville, H, Dutra, E, Elder, K, Ellis, C, Feng, X, Gelfan, A, Goodbody, A, Gusev, Y, Gustafsson, D, Hellström, R, Hirabayashi, Y, Hirota, T, Jonas, T, Koren, V, Kuragina, A, Lettenmaier, D, Li, WP, Luce, C, Martin, E, Nasonova, O, Pumpanen, J, Pyles, RD, Samuelsson, P, Sandells, M, Schädler, G, Shmakin, A, Smirnova, TG, Stähli, M, Stöckli, R, Strasser, U, Su, H, Suzuki, K, Takata, K, Tanaka, K, Thompson, E, Vesala, T, Viterbo, P, Wiltshire, A, Xia, K, Xue, Y & Yamazaki, T 2009, 'Evaluation of forest snow processes models (SnowMIP2)', Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, vol. 114, no. 6. https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011063
Rutter N, Essery R, Pomeroy J, Altimir N, Andreadis K, Baker I et al. Evaluation of forest snow processes models (SnowMIP2). Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. 2009 Mar 27;114(6). https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JD011063
Rutter, Nick ; Essery, Richard ; Pomeroy, John ; Altimir, Nuria ; Andreadis, Kostas ; Baker, Ian ; Barr, Alan ; Bartlett, Paul ; Boone, Aaron ; Deng, Huiping ; Douville, Hervé ; Dutra, Emanuel ; Elder, Kelly ; Ellis, Chad ; Feng, Xia ; Gelfan, Alexander ; Goodbody, Angus ; Gusev, Yeugeniy ; Gustafsson, David ; Hellström, Rob ; Hirabayashi, Yukiko ; Hirota, Tomoyoshi ; Jonas, Tobias ; Koren, Victor ; Kuragina, Anna ; Lettenmaier, Dennis ; Li, Wei Ping ; Luce, Charlie ; Martin, Eric ; Nasonova, Olga ; Pumpanen, Jukka ; Pyles, R. David ; Samuelsson, Patrick ; Sandells, Melody ; Schädler, Gerd ; Shmakin, Andrey ; Smirnova, Tatiana G. ; Stähli, Manfred ; Stöckli, Reto ; Strasser, Ulrich ; Su, Hua ; Suzuki, Kazuyoshi ; Takata, Kumiko ; Tanaka, Kenji ; Thompson, Erin ; Vesala, Timo ; Viterbo, Pedro ; Wiltshire, Andrew ; Xia, Kun ; Xue, Yongkang ; Yamazaki, Takeshi. / Evaluation of forest snow processes models (SnowMIP2). In: Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres. 2009 ; Vol. 114, No. 6.
@article{27fbc2d03a384fb2b24ca04c470c8ced,
title = "Evaluation of forest snow processes models (SnowMIP2)",
abstract = "Thirty-three snowpack models of varying complexity and purpose were evaluated across a wide range of hydrometeorological and forest canopy conditions at five Northern Hemisphere locations, for up to two winter snow seasons. Modeled estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) or depth were compared to observations at forest and open sites at each location. Precipitation phase and duration of above-freezing air temperatures are shown to be major influences on divergence and convergence of modeled estimates of the subcanopy snowpack: When models are considered collectively at all locations, comparisons with observations show that it is harder to model SWE at forested sites than open sites. There is no universal {"}best{"} model for all sites or locations, but comparison of the consistency of individual model performances relative to one another at different sites shows that there is less consistency at forest sites than open sites, and even less consistency between forest and open sites in the same year. A good performance by a model at a forest site is therefore unlikely to mean a good model performance by the same model at an open site (and vice versa). Calibration of models at forest sites provides lower errors than uncalibrated models at three out of four locations. However, benefits of calibration do not ' translate to subsequent years, and benefits gained by models calibrated for forest snow processes are not translated to open conditions.",
author = "Nick Rutter and Richard Essery and John Pomeroy and Nuria Altimir and Kostas Andreadis and Ian Baker and Alan Barr and Paul Bartlett and Aaron Boone and Huiping Deng and Herv{\'e} Douville and Emanuel Dutra and Kelly Elder and Chad Ellis and Xia Feng and Alexander Gelfan and Angus Goodbody and Yeugeniy Gusev and David Gustafsson and Rob Hellstr{\"o}m and Yukiko Hirabayashi and Tomoyoshi Hirota and Tobias Jonas and Victor Koren and Anna Kuragina and Dennis Lettenmaier and Li, {Wei Ping} and Charlie Luce and Eric Martin and Olga Nasonova and Jukka Pumpanen and Pyles, {R. David} and Patrick Samuelsson and Melody Sandells and Gerd Sch{\"a}dler and Andrey Shmakin and Smirnova, {Tatiana G.} and Manfred St{\"a}hli and Reto St{\"o}ckli and Ulrich Strasser and Hua Su and Kazuyoshi Suzuki and Kumiko Takata and Kenji Tanaka and Erin Thompson and Timo Vesala and Pedro Viterbo and Andrew Wiltshire and Kun Xia and Yongkang Xue and Takeshi Yamazaki",
year = "2009",
month = "3",
day = "27",
doi = "10.1029/2008JD011063",
language = "English",
volume = "114",
journal = "Journal of Geophysical Research",
issn = "0148-0227",
publisher = "American Geophysical Union",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of forest snow processes models (SnowMIP2)

AU - Rutter, Nick

AU - Essery, Richard

AU - Pomeroy, John

AU - Altimir, Nuria

AU - Andreadis, Kostas

AU - Baker, Ian

AU - Barr, Alan

AU - Bartlett, Paul

AU - Boone, Aaron

AU - Deng, Huiping

AU - Douville, Hervé

AU - Dutra, Emanuel

AU - Elder, Kelly

AU - Ellis, Chad

AU - Feng, Xia

AU - Gelfan, Alexander

AU - Goodbody, Angus

AU - Gusev, Yeugeniy

AU - Gustafsson, David

AU - Hellström, Rob

AU - Hirabayashi, Yukiko

AU - Hirota, Tomoyoshi

AU - Jonas, Tobias

AU - Koren, Victor

AU - Kuragina, Anna

AU - Lettenmaier, Dennis

AU - Li, Wei Ping

AU - Luce, Charlie

AU - Martin, Eric

AU - Nasonova, Olga

AU - Pumpanen, Jukka

AU - Pyles, R. David

AU - Samuelsson, Patrick

AU - Sandells, Melody

AU - Schädler, Gerd

AU - Shmakin, Andrey

AU - Smirnova, Tatiana G.

AU - Stähli, Manfred

AU - Stöckli, Reto

AU - Strasser, Ulrich

AU - Su, Hua

AU - Suzuki, Kazuyoshi

AU - Takata, Kumiko

AU - Tanaka, Kenji

AU - Thompson, Erin

AU - Vesala, Timo

AU - Viterbo, Pedro

AU - Wiltshire, Andrew

AU - Xia, Kun

AU - Xue, Yongkang

AU - Yamazaki, Takeshi

PY - 2009/3/27

Y1 - 2009/3/27

N2 - Thirty-three snowpack models of varying complexity and purpose were evaluated across a wide range of hydrometeorological and forest canopy conditions at five Northern Hemisphere locations, for up to two winter snow seasons. Modeled estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) or depth were compared to observations at forest and open sites at each location. Precipitation phase and duration of above-freezing air temperatures are shown to be major influences on divergence and convergence of modeled estimates of the subcanopy snowpack: When models are considered collectively at all locations, comparisons with observations show that it is harder to model SWE at forested sites than open sites. There is no universal "best" model for all sites or locations, but comparison of the consistency of individual model performances relative to one another at different sites shows that there is less consistency at forest sites than open sites, and even less consistency between forest and open sites in the same year. A good performance by a model at a forest site is therefore unlikely to mean a good model performance by the same model at an open site (and vice versa). Calibration of models at forest sites provides lower errors than uncalibrated models at three out of four locations. However, benefits of calibration do not ' translate to subsequent years, and benefits gained by models calibrated for forest snow processes are not translated to open conditions.

AB - Thirty-three snowpack models of varying complexity and purpose were evaluated across a wide range of hydrometeorological and forest canopy conditions at five Northern Hemisphere locations, for up to two winter snow seasons. Modeled estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) or depth were compared to observations at forest and open sites at each location. Precipitation phase and duration of above-freezing air temperatures are shown to be major influences on divergence and convergence of modeled estimates of the subcanopy snowpack: When models are considered collectively at all locations, comparisons with observations show that it is harder to model SWE at forested sites than open sites. There is no universal "best" model for all sites or locations, but comparison of the consistency of individual model performances relative to one another at different sites shows that there is less consistency at forest sites than open sites, and even less consistency between forest and open sites in the same year. A good performance by a model at a forest site is therefore unlikely to mean a good model performance by the same model at an open site (and vice versa). Calibration of models at forest sites provides lower errors than uncalibrated models at three out of four locations. However, benefits of calibration do not ' translate to subsequent years, and benefits gained by models calibrated for forest snow processes are not translated to open conditions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=66449089503&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=66449089503&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1029/2008JD011063

DO - 10.1029/2008JD011063

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:66449089503

VL - 114

JO - Journal of Geophysical Research

JF - Journal of Geophysical Research

SN - 0148-0227

IS - 6

ER -