The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Noah land surface model modifications to improve snowpack prediction in the Colorado Rocky Mountains
Open accessAbstract
Simulated snowpack by the Noah land surface model (LSM) shows an early depletion due to excessive sublimation and too early onset of snowmelt. To mitigate these deficiencies, five model modifications are tested to improve snowpack performance: (1) time‐varying snow albedo, (2) solar radiation adjustment for terrain slope and orientation, (3) reducing the surface exchange coefficient for stable boundary layers, (4) increase of fresh snow albedo, and (5) adjusting surface roughness length when snow is present. The Noah LSM is executed from 1 November 2007 to 1 August 2008 for the headwater region in the Colorado Rocky Mountains with complex terrain, and its results are evaluated against 1 km Snow Data Assimilation System (SNODAS) output and individual Natural Resources Conservation Service Snowpack Telemetry (SNOTEL) sites. The most effective way to improve magnitude and timing of seasonal maximum snow water equivalent (SWE) is the introduction of the time‐varying albedo formulation and the increase in fresh snow albedo. Minor improvement is obtained by reducing nighttime sublimation through adjusting the stable boundary layer surface exchange coefficient. Modifying the surface roughness length over snow surfaces and adding a terrain slope and orientation adjustment for radiation has little effect on average SWE conditions for the entire modeling domain, though it can have a significant effect in certain regions. The net effect of all changes is to improve the magnitude and timing of seasonal maximum SWE, but the snow period end is now somewhat too long. Adding the terrain slope and orientation effects does have an effect on local surface energy flux components depending on the cell slope and orientation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
A land data assimilation system for sub-Saharan Africa food and water security applications
McNally, A., Arsenault, K., Kumar, S., Shukla, S., Peterson, P., Wang, S., Funk, C., Peters-Lidard, C. D., & Verdin, J. P. (2017) · Scientific Data · doi:10.1038/sdata.2017.12 · Cited by 632
Attribution analysis of the Ethiopian drought of 2015
Philip, S., Kew, S. F., Jan van Oldenborgh, G., Otto, F., O’Keefe, S., Haustein, K., King, A., Zegeye, A., Eshetu, Z., Hailemariam, K., et al. (2018) · Journal of Climate · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-17-0274.1 · Cited by 170
Hodzic, A., & Madronich, S. (2018) · npj Climate and Atmospheric Science · doi:10.1038/s41612-018-0045-5 · Cited by 16
Metadata
- Authors
- Barlage, M., Chen, F., Tewari, M., Ikeda, K., Gochis, D., Dudhia, J., Rasmussen, R., Livneh, B., Ek, M., & Mitchell, K.
- Venue
- Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 2010-11-16
- Volume
- 115
- Issue
- D22
- ISSN
- 0148-0227 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2065860813
- Cited by
- 168
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 4.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Noah land surface model modifications to improve snowpack prediction in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/2009jd013470
- The paper
- Barlage, M., Chen, F., Tewari, M., Ikeda, K., Gochis, D., Dudhia, J., Rasmussen, R., Livneh, B., Ek, M., & Mitchell, K. (2010). Noah land surface model modifications to improve snowpack prediction in the Colorado Rocky Mountains. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009jd013470
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.