Open AccessSnow process modeling in the North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS): 1. Evaluation of model‐simulated snow cover extent
Author(s) -
Sheffield Justin,
Pan Ming,
Wood Eric F.,
Mitchell Kenneth E.,
Houser Paul R.,
Schaake John C.,
Robock Alan,
Lohmann Dag,
Cosgrove Brian,
Duan Qingyun,
Luo Lifeng,
Higgins R. Wayne,
Pinker Rachel T.,
Tarpley J. Dan,
Ramsay Bruce H.
Publication year - 2003
Publication title -
journal of geophysical research: atmospheres
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.67
H-Index - 298
eISSN - 2156-2202
pISSN - 0148-0227
DOI - 10.1029/2002jd003274
Subject(s) - snow , data assimilation , environmental science , land cover , elevation (ballistics) , climatology , snow cover , scale (ratio) , atmospheric sciences , meteorology , physical geography , geology , land use , geography , mathematics , cartography , engineering , civil engineering , geometry
This study evaluates the cold season process modeling in the North American Land Data Assimilation System (NLDAS) and consists of two parts: (1) assessment of land surface model simulations of snow cover extent and (2) evaluation of snow water equivalent. In this first part, simulations of snow cover extent from the four land surface models (Noah, MOSAIC, Sacramento land surface model (SAC), and variable infiltration capacity land surface model (VIC)) in the NLDAS were compared with observational data from the Interactive Multisensor Snow and Ice Mapping System for a 3 year retrospective period over the conterminous United States. In general, all models simulate reasonably well the regional‐scale spatial and seasonal dynamics of snow cover. Systematic biases are seen in the model simulations, with consistent underestimation of snow cover extent by MOSAIC (−19.8% average bias) and Noah (−22.5%), and overestimation by VIC (22.3%), with SAC being essentially unbiased on average. However, the level of bias at the regional scale varies with geographic location and elevation variability. Larger discrepancies are seen over higher elevation regions of the northwest of the United States that may be due, in part, to errors in the meteorological forcings and also at the snow line boundary, where most temporal and spatial variability in snow cover extent is likely to occur. The spread between model simulations is fairly low and generally envelopes the observed data at the mean regional scale, indicating that the models are quite capable of simulating the general behavior of snow processes at these scales. Intermodel differences can be explained to some extent by differences in the model representations of subgrid variability and parameterizations of snow cover extent.