AUTHOR=Krampe Daniela , Kauker Frank , Dumont Marie , Herber Andreas TITLE=Snow and meteorological conditions at Villum Research Station, Northeast Greenland: on the adequacy of using atmospheric reanalysis for detailed snow simulations JOURNAL=Frontiers in Earth Science VOLUME=11 YEAR=2023 URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/earth-science/articles/10.3389/feart.2023.1053918 DOI=10.3389/feart.2023.1053918 ISSN=2296-6463 ABSTRACT=

Reliable and detailed measurements of atmospheric and snow conditions in the Arctic are limited. While modern atmospheric reanalyses could potentially replace the former, the latter can be principally simulated by dedicated snow modelling. However, because the uncertainties of reanalyses and modelling are still exceptionally large at high latitudes, a thorough analysis of the performance of atmospheric reanalyses and the snow model simulations are required. Specifically, we aim to answer the following questions for Villum Research Station (VRS), northeast Greenland: (1) What are the predominant snow and meteorological conditions? (2) What are systematic differences between the modern atmospheric reanalysis ERA5 and in situ measurements? (3) Can the snow model Crocus simulate reliably snow depth and stratigraphy? We systematically compare atmospheric in situ measurements and ERA5 reanalysis (November 2015–August 2018) and evaluate simulated and measured snow depth (October 2014–September 2018). Moreover, modelled and measured vertical profiles of snow density and snow specific surface area (SSA) are analysed for two days where a survey had taken place. We found good agreement between in situ and ERA5 atmospheric variables with correlation coefficients >0.84 except for precipitation, wind speed, and wind direction. ERA5’s resolution is too coarse to resolve the topography in the study area adequately, leading presumably to the detected biases. Crocus can simulate satisfactorily the evolution of snow depth, but simulations of SSA and density profiles, whether driven by ERA5 or in situ measurements are biased compared to measurements. Unexpectedly, measured snow depth agrees better with ERA5 driven simulation than with simulation forced with in situ measurements (explained variance: 0.73 versus 0.23). This is due to differences in snowfall, humidity and air temperature between both forcing datasets. In conclusion, ERA5 has great potential to force snow models but the use of Crocus in the Arctic is affected by limitations such as inappropriate parametrisations for Arctic snowpack evolution, but also by lack of process formulations such as vertical water vapour transport. These limitations strongly affect the accuracy of the vertical profiles of physical snow properties.