Physics-based SNOWPACK model improves representation of near-surface Antarctic snow and firn density

• Main Authors: Keenan, Eric, Wever, Nander, Dattler, Marissa, Lenaerts, Jan T.M., Medley, Brooke, Kuipers Munneke, Peter, Reijmer, Carleen
• Other Authors: Sub Dynamics Meteorology, Marine and Atmospheric Research
• Language: English
• Published: 2021
• Subjects: Antarctic; The Antarctic; Antarc*; Ice Sheet
• Online Access: https://dspace.library.uu.nl/handle/1874/411773

Estimates of snow and firn density are required for satellite-altimetry-based retrievals of ice sheet mass balance that rely on volume-to-mass conversions. Therefore, biases and errors in presently used density models confound assessments of ice sheet mass balance and by extension ice sheet contribution to sea level rise. Despite this importance, most contemporary firn densification models rely on simplified semi-empirical methods, which are partially reflected by significant modeled density errors when compared to observations. In this study, we present a new driftingsnow compaction scheme that we have implemented into SNOWPACK, a physics-based land surface snow model. We show that our new scheme improves existing versions of SNOWPACK by increasing simulated near-surface (defined as the top 10 m) density to be more in line with observations (near-surface bias reduction from 44.9 to 5.4 kgm 3). Furthermore, we demonstrate high-quality simulation of near-surface Antarctic snow and firn density at 122 observed density profiles across the Antarctic ice sheet, as indicated by reduced model biases throughout most of the near-surface firn column when compared to two semi-empirical firn densification models (SNOWPACK mean bias D 9:7 kgm 3, IMAU-FDM mean bias D 32:5 kgm 3, GSFC-FDM mean bias D 15:5 kgm 3). Notably, our analysis is restricted to the near surface where firn density is most variable due to accumulation and compaction variability driven by synoptic weather and seasonal climate variability. Additionally, the GSFC-FDM exhibits lower mean density bias from 7-10m (SNOWPACK bias D 22:5 kgm 3, GSFC-FDM bias D 10:6 kgm 3) and throughout the entire near surface at high-accumulation sites (SNOWPACK bias D 31:4 kgm 3, GSFC-FDM bias D 4:7 kgm 3). However, we found that the performance of SNOWPACK did not degrade when applied to sites that were not included in the calibration of semi-empirical models. This suggests that SNOWPACK may possibly better represent firn properties in locations without extensive observations ...