How does a dynamic surface roughness affect snowpack modeling?

被引:0
|
作者
Sanow, Jessica E. [1 ]
Fassnacht, Steven R. [1 ,2 ]
Suzuki, Kazuyoshi [3 ]
机构
[1] Colorado State Univ, ESS Watershed Sci, Ft Collins, CO 80523 USA
[2] Colorado State Univ, CIRA, Ft Collins, CO 80523 USA
[3] Japan Agcy Marine Earth Sci & Technol JAMSTEC, 3173-25 Showamachi,Kanazawa Ku, Yokohama, Kanagawa 2360001, Japan
基金
日本学术振兴会;
关键词
Geometric measurements; Aerodynamic roughness length; Terrestrial lidar; SNOWPACK model; Snow surface topography; SCALAR TRANSFER; LIDAR; DEPTH; GLACIER; LENGTH;
D O I
10.1016/j.polar.2024.101110
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
The SNOWPACK model is a cryosphere model which incorporates several environmental model parameters, one of which being the aerodynamic roughness length (z(0)). The z(0) is considered a static parameter, however, research has shown that the z(0) of the surface is variable due to the changing nature of the snowpack surface throughout the winter season. This study highlights the sensitivity of the z(0) within the SNOWPACK model based on the outputs of sublimation, SWE, and sensible heat. The z(0) values were calculated in two ways, anemometrically (z(0-A)), using a wind profile, and geometrically (z(0-G)), measuring surface geometry. Calculated z(0-A) values were between 1.03 x 10(-6) to 0.12 m. The z(0-G) values were calculated from a terrestrial lidar scan using various resolution values of post-process resolutions. These resolutions of 0.01, 0.1, and 1 m resulted in z(0-G) values of 0.26, 0.08, and 0.01 m, respectively. Therefore, as the resolution coarsened, the z(0-G) values decreased. Lastly, these calculated z(0-G) values, a variable run, using weekly measured z(0-G) values, and 0.002 (SNOWPACK default), 0.02, and 0.2 m values were incorporated into the SNOWPACK model. When applied, cumulative sublimation, SWE, and sensible heat outputs varied by 131%, -71%, and -49%, when compared to the default z(0) value used within the model.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Dynamic surface roughness profiler
    Kimbrough, Brad
    Brock, Neal
    Millerd, James
    OPTICAL MANUFACTURING AND TESTING IX, 2011, 8126
  • [22] Stochastic modeling of surface roughness
    Sugimura, J
    JOURNAL OF JAPANESE SOCIETY OF TRIBOLOGISTS, 1998, 43 (11) : 933 - 938
  • [23] Modeling of surface roughness for ARXPS
    Oswald, S.
    Oswald, F.
    PHYSICA STATUS SOLIDI C - CURRENT TOPICS IN SOLID STATE PHYSICS, VOL 4 NO 6, 2007, 4 (06): : 1817 - +
  • [24] Modeling Surface Roughness at DC
    Mittal, Surbhi
    Chakraborty, Swagato
    2019 IEEE 28TH CONFERENCE ON ELECTRICAL PERFORMANCE OF ELECTRONIC PACKAGING AND SYSTEMS (EPEPS 2019), 2019,
  • [25] Modeling and simulation of surface roughness
    Patrikar, RA
    APPLIED SURFACE SCIENCE, 2004, 228 (1-4) : 213 - 220
  • [26] Stochastic Modeling of Surface Roughness
    Sugimura, Joichi
    Toraibarojisuto/Journal of Japanese Society of Tribologists, 43 (11): : 933 - 938
  • [27] How does glycan affect protein stabilization and folding: A molecular dynamic simulation?
    Lu, Diannan
    Liu, Zheng
    JOURNAL OF BIOSCIENCE AND BIOENGINEERING, 2009, 108 : S60 - S61
  • [28] How Does Dissipation Affect the Transition from Static to Dynamic Macroscopic Friction?
    Gershenzon, Naum I.
    Bambakidis, Gust
    Skinner, Thomas E.
    LUBRICANTS, 2015, 3 (02): : 311 - 331
  • [29] Modeling of stepwise homopolymerization - How does the definition of a model affect the fraction of cycles?
    Lechowicz, JB
    Galina, H
    POLIMERY, 2000, 45 (7-8) : 496 - 501
  • [30] How does underlying geology affect coastline change? An initial modeling investigation
    Valvo, Lisa M.
    Murray, A. Brad
    Ashton, Andrew
    JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH-EARTH SURFACE, 2006, 111 (F2)