Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T23:44:26.622Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Snowpack water-equivalent estimates from satellite and aircraft remote-sensing measurements of the Red River basin, north-central U.S.A.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

E. G. Josberger
Affiliation:
U.S.G.S. Ice and Climate Project, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA 98416, U.S.A.
N. M. Mognard
Affiliation:
CESBIO–CNES, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA 98416, U.S.A.
B. Lind
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA 98416, U.S.A.
R. Matthews
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, University of Puget Sound, Tacoma, WA 98416, U.S.A.
T. Carroll
Affiliation:
National operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center, NOAA, Minneapolis, MN 55450, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Most algorithms to extract dry snowpack water equivalent (SWE) from satellite passive-microwave observations are based on point measurements of SWE or extrapolation of point measurements to the 30 km footprint of the satellite observations. SWE observations on a scale comparable to the satellite observations can be obtained from airborne gamma-ray attenuation techniques from flight lines that are approximately 10 km long. During the winter of 1989, the NOAA National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center (NOHRSC) flew 92 of these night lines over a 200 × 250 km area of the Red River basin which is located in the north-central part of the United States of America. These observations provide a unique dataset of snow water-equivalent determinations on spatial scales similar to the satellite passive-microwave observations as acquired by the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) Special Sensor Microwave Imager (SSM/I) F-8 satellite. Land-classification determinations from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) show that the eastern part of the region contains a coniferous forest of varying coverage, while the remainder is farmland or prairie. SSM/I data, including observations from a no-snow case in the preceding fall, the flight-line data and the AVHRR data were all co-registered to a common 20 km grid. The resulting dataset was analyzed using linear regression, artificial intelligence and general linear models. The results showed that the passive-microwave response was similar to the response predicted by Mie scattering theory. A comparison of the three techniques found that the artificial intelligence technique and the general linear model explained significantly more of the variance in the dataset, as evidenced by R 2 values of 0.97 compared to 0.88 for the linear multiple-regression analysis. Hence, a neural network approach which was continually trained on new datasets as they became available, could provide better estimates of snowpack water equivalent than algorithms based on linear-regression techniques.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1998
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Snow water equivalent map (cm) derived from NOHRSC flight lines that took place 13–17 February 1989 in the Red River basin. Each cross represents the location of the center of each flight line. The contour lines and gray tones show the gridded SWE values derived by kriging the flight line data.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Scatter diagram oj the differences in brightness temperature between the 19H and 37H GHz channels as a function of the snow water equivalent from the gamma ray instrument for February 17, 1989, when there was snow and November 14, 1988, when there was no snow.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Variation of the A coefficient defined in Equation (2) as a Junction of the fraction of forest cover. The values computed with forest correction are represented with circles (o), and the values computed with no correction correction are represented with pluses (+). The bold symbols give the average values for each case and the bars give the standard deviation of the averages. See the text for further explanation.

Figure 3

Table 1. R2 values from the neural-network analysis and from the multiple linear-regression analysis (MLR) for various data inputs. The upper part is for the case with both snow and no-snow data, while the lower part is for the case with snow only

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Smoothed variation of snow water equivalent as a function of the difference in brightness temperature 19H and 37H. This sigmoidal curve was obtained with a general linear model.