Articles | Volume 8, issue 12
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3867-2015
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-3867-2015
Model description paper
 | 
08 Dec 2015
Model description paper |  | 08 Dec 2015

A factorial snowpack model (FSM 1.0)

R. Essery

Related authors

Altimetric Ku-band Radar Observations of Snow on Sea Ice Simulated with SMRT
Julien Meloche, Melody Sandells, Henning Löwe, Nick Rutter, Richard Essery, Ghislain Picard, Randall K. Scharien, Alexandre Langlois, Matthias Jaggi, Josh King, Peter Toose, Jérôme Bouffard, Alessandro Di Bella, and Michele Scagliola
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1583,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1583, 2024
Short summary
Multi-physics ensemble modelling of Arctic tundra snowpack properties
Georgina Jean Woolley, Nick Rutter, Leanne Wake, Vincent Vionnet, Chris Derksen, Richard Essery, Philip Marsh, Rosamund Tutton, Branden Walker, Matthieu Lafaysse, and David Pritchard
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1237,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1237, 2024
Short summary
Simulating net ecosystem exchange under seasonal snow cover at an Arctic tundra site
Victoria R. Dutch, Nick Rutter, Leanne Wake, Oliver Sonnentag, Gabriel Hould Gosselin, Melody Sandells, Chris Derksen, Branden Walker, Gesa Meyer, Richard Essery, Richard Kelly, Phillip Marsh, Julia Boike, and Matteo Detto
Biogeosciences, 21, 825–841, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-825-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-21-825-2024, 2024
Short summary
GEMS v1.0: Generalizable Empirical Model of Snow Accumulation and Melt, based on daily snow mass changes in response to climate and topographic drivers
Atabek Umirbekov, Richard Essery, and Daniel Müller
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 911–929, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-911-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-911-2024, 2024
Short summary
Exploring the decision-making process in model development: focus on the Arctic snowpack
Cecile B. Menard, Sirpa Rasmus, Ioanna Merkouriadi, Gianpaolo Balsamo, Annett Bartsch, Chris Derksen, Florent Domine, Marie Dumont, Dorothee Ehrich, Richard Essery, Bruce C. Forbes, Gerhard Krinner, David Lawrence, Glen Liston, Heidrun Matthes, Nick Rutter, Melody Sandells, Martin Schneebeli, and Sari Stark
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2926,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2926, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Cryosphere
A novel numerical implementation for the surface energy budget of melting snowpacks and glaciers
Kévin Fourteau, Julien Brondex, Fanny Brun, and Marie Dumont
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1903–1929, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1903-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1903-2024, 2024
Short summary
SnowPappus v1.0, a blowing-snow model for large-scale applications of the Crocus snow scheme
Matthieu Baron, Ange Haddjeri, Matthieu Lafaysse, Louis Le Toumelin, Vincent Vionnet, and Mathieu Fructus
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1297–1326, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1297-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1297-2024, 2024
Short summary
OpenFOAM-avalanche 2312: Depth-integrated Models Beyond Dense Flow Avalanches
Matthias Rauter and Julia Kowalski
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-210,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-210, 2024
Short summary
A stochastic parameterization of ice sheet surface mass balance for the Stochastic Ice-Sheet and Sea-Level System Model (StISSM v1.0)
Lizz Ultee, Alexander A. Robel, and Stefano Castruccio
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 1041–1057, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1041-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-1041-2024, 2024
Short summary
Graphics-processing-unit-accelerated ice flow solver for unstructured meshes using the Shallow-Shelf Approximation (FastIceFlo v1.0.1)
Anjali Sandip, Ludovic Räss, and Mathieu Morlighem
Geosci. Model Dev., 17, 899–909, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-899-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-17-899-2024, 2024
Short summary

Cited articles

Bartelt, P. and Lehning, M.: A physical SNOWPACK model for the Swiss avalanche warning, Part I: Numerical model, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 35, 123–145, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-232X(02)00074-5, 2002.
Best, M. J., Pryor, M., Clark, D. B., Rooney, G. G., Essery, R .L. H., Ménard, C. B., Edwards, J. M., Hendry, M. A., Porson, A., Gedney, N., Mercado, L. M., Sitch, S., Blyth, E., Boucher, O., Cox, P. M., Grimmond, C. S. B., and Harding, R. J.: The Joint UK Land Environment Simulator (JULES), model description – Part 1: Energy and water fluxes, Geosci. Model Dev., 4, 677–699, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-4-677-2011, 2011.
Boone, A. and Etchevers, P.: An intercomparison of three snow schemes of varying complexity coupled to the same land surface model: Local-scale evaluation at an alpine site, J. Hydrometeorol., 2, 374–394, 2001.
Calonne, N., Geindreau, C., and Flin, F.: Macroscopic modeling for heat and water vapor transfer in dry snow by homogenization, J. Phys. Chem. B, 118, 13393–13403, https://doi.org/10.1021/jp5052535, 2014.
Download
Short summary
Models of snow on the ground need to represent processes of solar radiation absorption, heat conduction, liquid water movement and compaction in snow and transfers of heat from the atmosphere. There are many such models in use, but their wide range in complexity makes it hard to understand how differences in process representations determine differences in predictions. Processes in the factorial snow model can be switched on or off independently, allowing highly controlled numerical experiments.