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
  • [31] How do slope and surface roughness affect plot-scale overland flow connectivity?
    Penuela, Andres
    Javaux, Mathieu
    Bielders, Charles L.
    JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2015, 528 : 192 - 205
  • [32] Does surface roughness amplify wetting?
    Malijevsky, Alexandr
    JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL PHYSICS, 2014, 141 (18):
  • [33] How Does Rain Affect Surface Pressure in a One-Dimensional Framework?
    Spengler, Thomas
    Egger, Joseph
    Garner, Stephen T.
    JOURNAL OF THE ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, 2011, 68 (02) : 347 - 360
  • [34] How does the shape and surface energy of pores affect the adsorption of nanoconfined fluids?
    Cardenas, Harry
    Muller, Erich A.
    AICHE JOURNAL, 2021, 67 (03)
  • [35] How mesoscale and microscale roughness affect perceived gloss
    Qi, L.
    Chantler, M.
    Siebert, J. P.
    Dong, J.
    PERCEPTION, 2012, 41 (03) : 375 - 375
  • [36] Dynamic letter volume models: how does an economic downturn affect substitution propensities?
    Martin, Vance L.
    Paterson, Chris J.
    Nikali, Heikki
    Li, Qiubang
    REFORMING THE POSTAL SECTOR IN THE FACE OF ELECTRONIC COMPETITION, 2013, : 163 - 178
  • [37] How does dynamic capability affect logistics service integrator's growth performance
    Liu, Wei
    Sun, Ling
    Li, Wenjuan
    Zhang, Hanwen
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SERVICES TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT, 2018, 24 (1-3) : 151 - 172
  • [38] How does the supervision stringency affect systemic risk based on the differential dynamic model?
    Bian Chenyu
    Yang Haomiao
    Zhang Ning
    SYSTEMS SCIENCE & CONTROL ENGINEERING, 2019, 7 (01): : 357 - 368
  • [39] From slow to ultra-slow: How does spreading rate affect seafloor roughness and crustal thickness?
    Sauter, Daniel
    Sloan, Heather
    Cannat, Mathilde
    Goff, John
    Patriat, Philippe
    Schaming, Marc
    Roest, Walter R.
    GEOLOGY, 2011, 39 (10) : 911 - 914
  • [40] How does the size of a document affect Linked Open Data user modeling strategies?
    Manrique, Ruben
    Marino, Olga
    2017 IEEE/WIC/ACM INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEB INTELLIGENCE (WI 2017), 2017, : 1246 - 1252