z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
A Particle Batch Smoother Approach to Snow Water Equivalent Estimation
Author(s) -
S. A. Margulis,
Manuela Girotto,
G. Cortés,
M. T. Durand
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
journal of hydrometeorology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.733
H-Index - 123
eISSN - 1525-755X
pISSN - 1525-7541
DOI - 10.1175/jhm-d-14-0177.1
Subject(s) - snow , mean squared error , environmental science , data assimilation , precipitation , computer science , remote sensing , structural basin , drainage basin , meteorology , snow cover , geology , statistics , mathematics , physics , geomorphology , cartography , geography
This paper presents a newly proposed data assimilation method for historical snow water equivalent SWE estimation using remotely sensed fractional snow-covered area fSCA. The newly proposed approach consists of a particle batch smoother (PBS), which is compared to a previously applied Kalman-based ensemble batch smoother (EnBS) approach. The methods were applied over the 27-yr Landsat 5 record at snow pillow and snow course in situ verification sites in the American River basin in the Sierra Nevada (United States). This basin is more densely vegetated and thus more challenging for SWE estimation than the previous applications of the EnBS. Both data assimilation methods provided significant improvement over the prior (modeling only) estimates, with both able to significantly reduce prior SWE biases. The prior RMSE values at the snow pillow and snow course sites were reduced by 68%–82% and 60%–68%, respectively, when applying the data assimilation methods. This result is encouraging for a basin like the American where the moderate to high forest cover will necessarily obscure more of the snow-covered ground surface than in previously examined, less-vegetated basins. The PBS generally outperformed the EnBS: for snow pillows the PBS RMSE was ~54% of that seen in the EnBS, while for snow courses the PBS RMSE was ~79% of the EnBS. Sensitivity tests show relative insensitivity for both the PBS and EnBS results to ensemble size and fSCA measurement error, but a higher sensitivity for the EnBS to the mean prior precipitation input, especially in the case where significant prior biases exist.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here