High temporal resolution estimates of Arctic snowfall rates emphasizing gauge and radar-based retrievals from the MOSAiC expedition
This article presents the results of snowfall rate and accumulation estimates from a vertically pointing 35-GHz radar and other sensors deployed during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition. The radar-based retrievals are the most consistent i...
| Published in: | Elementa: Science of the Anthropocene |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , |
| Language: | unknown |
| Published: |
2023
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1864833 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/1864833 https://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.2021.00101 |
| Summary: | This article presents the results of snowfall rate and accumulation estimates from a vertically pointing 35-GHz radar and other sensors deployed during the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC) expedition. The radar-based retrievals are the most consistent in terms of data availability and are largely immune to blowing snow. The total liquid-equivalent accumulation during the snow accumulation season is around 110 mm, with more abundant precipitation during spring months. About half of the total accumulation came from weak snowfall with rates less than approximately 0.2 mmh–1. The total snowfall estimates from a Vaisala optical sensor aboard the icebreaker are similar to those from radar retrievals, though their daily and monthly accumulations and instantaneous rates varied significantly. Compared to radar retrievals and the icebreaker optical sensor data, measurements from an identical optical sensor at an ice camp are biased high. Blowing snow effects, in part, explain differences. Weighing gauge measurements significantly overestimate snowfall during February–April 2020 as compared to other sensors and are not well suited for estimating instantaneous snowfall rates. The icebreaker optical disdrometer estimates of snowfall rates are, on average, relatively little biased compared to radar retrievals when raw particle counts are available and appropriate snowflake mass-size relations are used. These counts, however, are not available during periods that produced more than a third of the total snowfall. While there are uncertainties in the radar-based retrievals due to the choice of reflectivity-snowfall rate relations, the major error contributor is the uncertainty in the radar absolute calibration. The MOSAiC radar calibration is evaluated using comparisons with other radars and liquid water cloud–drizzle processes observed during summer. Overall, this study describes a consistent, radar-based snowfall rate product for MOSAiC that provides significant insight into ... |
|---|