Liquid water storage in snow and ice in 86 Eastern Alpine basins and its changes from 1970–97 to 1998–2006

Kühn, Michael; Ortner, Martin; Landmann, Johannes; Gurgiser, Wolfgang

doi:10.1017/aog.2016.24

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(42 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the model shows earlier onset of snow during autumn and early winter and earlier melting in spring. The earlier melting in spring could be partially explained by the neglect of refreezing or storage of liquid water in the snow pack [35]. This process is not accounted for in the COSMO snow model but plays an important role in reality.…”

Section: Annual Cycle Of Snow Water Equivalentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Projections of Alpine Snow-Cover in a High-Resolution Climate Simulation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The recent development of high-resolution climate models offers a promising approach in improving the simulation of precipitation, clouds and temperature. However, higher grid spacing is also a promising feature to improve the simulation of snow cover. In particular, it provides a refined representation of topography and allows for an explicit simulation of convective precipitation processes. In this study we analyze the snow cover in a set of decade-long high-resolution climate simulation with horizontal grid spacing of 2.2 km over the greater Alpine region. Results are compared against observations and lower resolution models (12 and 50 km), which use parameterized convection. The simulations are integrated using the COSMO (Consortium for Small-Scale Modeling) model. The evaluation of snow water equivalent (SWE) in the simulation of present-day climate, driven by the ERA-Interim reanalysis, against an observational dataset, reveals that the high-resolution simulation clearly outperforms simulations with grid spacing of 12 and 50 km. The latter simulations underestimate the cumulative amount of SWE over Switzerland over the whole annual cycle by 33% (12 km simulation) and 56% (50 km simulation) while the high-resolution simulation shows a spatially and temporally averaged difference of less than 1%. Scenario simulations driven by GCM MPI-ESM-LR (2081–2090 RCP8.5 vs. 1991–2000) reveal a strong decrease of SWE over the Alps, consistent with previous studies. Previous studies had found that the relative decrease becomes gradually smaller with elevation, but this finding was limited to low and intermediate altitudes (as a 12 km simulation resolves the topography up to 2500 m). In the current study we find that the height gradient reverses sign, and relative reductions in snow cover increases above 3000 m asl, where important parts of the cryosphere are present. In addition, the simulations project a transition from permanent to seasonal snow cover at high altitudes, with potentially important impacts to Alpine permafrost. This transition and the more pronounced decline of SWE emphasize the value of the higher grid spacing. Overall, we show that high-resolution climate models offer a promising approach in improving the simulation of snow cover in Alpine terrain.

show abstract

Section: Annual Cycle Of Snow Water Equivalentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Projections of Alpine Snow-Cover in a High-Resolution Climate Simulation

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…nus evaporation (Kuhn et al, 2016). Interannual changes in ground water storage are neglected, as the method aims at mean annual values over longer periods.…”

Section: Areal Precipitationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multilevel spatiotemporal validation of snow/ice mass balance and runoff modeling in glacierized catchments

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In this study, the fully distributed, physically based hydroclimatological model AMUNDSEN is set up for catchments in the highly glacierized Ötztal Alps (Austria, 558 km2 in total). The model is applied for the period 1997–2013, using a spatial resolution of 50 m and a temporal resolution of 1 h. A novel parameterization for lateral snow redistribution based on topographic openness is presented to account for the highly heterogeneous snow accumulation patterns in the complex topography of the study region. Multilevel spatiotemporal validation is introduced as a systematic, independent, complete, and redundant validation procedure based on the observation scale of temporal and spatial support, spacing, and extent. This new approach is demonstrated using a comprehensive set of eight independent validation sources: (i) mean areal precipitation over the period 1997–2006 derived by conserving mass in the closure of the water balance, (ii) time series of snow depth recordings at the plot scale, (iii–iv) multitemporal snow extent maps derived from Landsat and MODIS satellite data products, (v) the snow accumulation distribution for the winter season 2010/2011 derived from airborne laser scanning data, (vi) specific surface mass balances for three glaciers in the study area, (vii) spatially distributed glacier surface elevation changes for the entire area over the period 1997–2006, and (viii) runoff recordings for several subcatchments. The results indicate a high overall model skill and especially demonstrate the benefit of the new validation approach. The method can serve as guideline for systematically validating the coupled components in integrated snow-hydrological and glacio-hydrological models.

show abstract

“…Maximum accumulated monthly precipitation occurred in the summer months (79 mm in July), whereas minimum average monthly precipitation appeared in winter (32 mm in February). Yearly sum of areal precipitation is approximately 1200-1500 mm [7,35]. A precipitation gradient of 4-5% per 100 m is found in [36] for this study area.…”

Section: Catchmentmentioning

confidence: 66%

What Can We Learn from Comparing Glacio-Hydrological Models?

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glacio-hydrological models combine both glacier and catchment hydrology modeling and are used to assess the hydrological response of high-mountain glacierized catchments to climate change. To capture the uncertainties from these model combinations, it is essential to compare the outcomes of several model entities forced with the same climate projections. For the first time, we compare the results of two completely independent glacio-hydrological models: (i) HQsim-GEM and (ii) AMUNDSEN. In contrast to prevailing studies, we use distinct glacier models and glacier initialization times. At first glance, the results achieved for future glacier states and hydrological characteristics in the Rofenache catchment in Ötztal Alps (Austria) appear to be similar and consistent, but a closer look reveals clear differences. What can be learned from this study is that low-complexity models can achieve higher accuracy in the calibration period. This is advantageous especially when data availability is weak, and priority is given to efficient computation time. Furthermore, the time and method of glacier initialization play an important role due to different data requirements. In essence, it is not possible to make conclusions about the model performance outside of the calibration period or more specifically in the future. Hence, similar to climate modeling, we suggest considering different modeling approaches when assessing future catchment discharge or glacier evolution. Especially when transferring the results to stakeholders, it is vital to transparently communicate the bandwidth of future states that come with all model results.

show abstract

Liquid water storage in snow and ice in 86 Eastern Alpine basins and its changes from 1970–97 to 1998–2006

Cited by 8 publications

References 34 publications

Projections of Alpine Snow-Cover in a High-Resolution Climate Simulation

Projections of Alpine Snow-Cover in a High-Resolution Climate Simulation

Multilevel spatiotemporal validation of snow/ice mass balance and runoff modeling in glacierized catchments

What Can We Learn from Comparing Glacio-Hydrological Models?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About