2017
DOI: 10.1080/02723646.2016.1277935
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Uncertainties in the SNOWPACK multilayer snow model for a Canadian avalanche context: sensitivity to climatic forcing data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For precipitation, in most cases, bias is corrected but MAE increases. Indeed, even though the model on average underestimates precipitation, major precipitation events are overestimated (Côté et al, 2017). The "one-directional" lapse-rate correction reduces the overall bias by accurately correcting the small and common underestimation errors but accentuates the overall larger and rarer overestimation errors, thus increasing the MAE.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For precipitation, in most cases, bias is corrected but MAE increases. Indeed, even though the model on average underestimates precipitation, major precipitation events are overestimated (Côté et al, 2017). The "one-directional" lapse-rate correction reduces the overall bias by accurately correcting the small and common underestimation errors but accentuates the overall larger and rarer overestimation errors, thus increasing the MAE.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These constraints are essential to keep the algorithm from degenerating and generate irrelevant alignments. However, atmospheric models tend to strongly underestimate precipitations in mountain environments (Bellaire et al, , 2013Côté et al, 2017). Hence, profiles generated from atmospheric models and ground truth profiles can have a significant difference in HS.…”
Section: Snow Modeling Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Previous snow sensitivity studies typically focused on snow depth or snow water equivalent (SWE). Uncertainties in modeled snow depth or SWE were estimated from meteorological input uncertainty (e.g., Bellaire et al, 2011;Côté et al, 2017;Lapo et al, 2015;Raleigh et al, 2015;Sauter and Obleitner, 2015), different model setups (Günther et al, 2019;Schlögl et al, 2016) or different physical model assumptions (Günther et al, 2019;Lafaysse et al, 2017). Uncertainties from meteorological input had the highest impact on SWE (Günther et al, 2019).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, only a few studies have so far assessed the uncertainty of snow cover models. Côté et al (2017) investigated the sensitivity of modeled snow height to three different weather models for five different automatic weather stations. They found that differences in forecast precipitation influenced modeled snow height.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%