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

A Flexible Snow Model (FSM 2.1.1) including a forest canopy
Richard Essery, Giulia Mazzotti, Sarah Barr, Tobias Jonas, Tristan Quaife, and Nick Rutter
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3583–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3583-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3583-2025, 2025
Short summary
Simulating snow properties and Ku-band backscatter across the forest-tundra ecotone
Georgina J. Woolley, Nick Rutter, Leanne Wake, Vincent Vionnet, Chris Derksen, Julien Meloche, Benoit Montpetit, Nicolas R. Leroux, Richard Essery, Gabriel Hould Gosselin, and Philip Marsh
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1498,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1498, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).
Short summary
Multi-physics ensemble modelling of Arctic tundra snowpack properties
Georgina J. Woolley, Nick Rutter, Leanne Wake, Vincent Vionnet, Chris Derksen, Richard Essery, Philip Marsh, Rosamond Tutton, Branden Walker, Matthieu Lafaysse, and David Pritchard
The Cryosphere, 18, 5685–5711, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-5685-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-5685-2024, 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
The Cryosphere, 18, 4671–4686, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4671-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-4671-2024, 2024
Short summary
Simulation of Arctic snow microwave emission in surface-sensitive atmosphere channels
Melody Sandells, Nick Rutter, Kirsty Wivell, Richard Essery, Stuart Fox, Chawn Harlow, Ghislain Picard, Alexandre Roy, Alain Royer, and Peter Toose
The Cryosphere, 18, 3971–3990, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3971-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3971-2024, 2024
Short summary

Related subject area

Cryosphere
Computationally efficient subglacial drainage modelling using Gaussian process emulators: GlaDS-GP v1.0
Tim Hill, Derek Bingham, Gwenn E. Flowers, and Matthew J. Hoffman
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4045–4074, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4045-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4045-2025, 2025
Short summary
Anisotropic metric-based mesh adaptation for ice flow modelling in Firedrake
Davor Dundovic, Joseph G. Wallwork, Stephan C. Kramer, Fabien Gillet-Chaulet, Regine Hock, and Matthew D. Piggott
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 4023–4044, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4023-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-4023-2025, 2025
Short summary
Description and validation of the ice-sheet model Nix v1.0
Daniel Moreno-Parada, Alexander Robinson, Marisa Montoya, and Jorge Alvarez-Solas
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3895–3919, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3895-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3895-2025, 2025
Short summary
The Utrecht Finite Volume Ice-Sheet Model (UFEMISM) version 2.0 – Part 1: Description and idealised experiments
Constantijn J. Berends, Victor Azizi, Jorge A. Bernales, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3635–3659, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3635-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3635-2025, 2025
Short summary
A Flexible Snow Model (FSM 2.1.1) including a forest canopy
Richard Essery, Giulia Mazzotti, Sarah Barr, Tobias Jonas, Tristan Quaife, and Nick Rutter
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 3583–3605, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3583-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-3583-2025, 2025
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.
Share