Model simulations of the modulating effect of the snow cover in a rain-on-snow event

Wever, N.; Jonas, T.; Fierz, C.; Lehning, M.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4657-2014

Articles | Volume 18, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4657-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4657-2014

© Author(s) 2014. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.

Articles | Volume 18, issue 11

Research article

|

26 Nov 2014

Research article |

| 26 Nov 2014

Model simulations of the modulating effect of the snow cover in a rain-on-snow event

N. Wever, T. Jonas, C. Fierz, and M. Lehning

Download

Final revised paper (published on 26 Nov 2014)
Preprint (discussion started on 15 May 2014)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC C1761: 'Review of Wever et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 05 Jun 2014
- AC C1929: 'Response to reviewer 1', Nander Wever, 19 Jun 2014
RC C2538: 'Interactive comment on “Model simulations of the modulating effect of the snow cover in a rain on snow event” be N. Wever et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 16 Jul 2014

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (25 Jul 2014) by Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen

AR by Nander Wever on behalf of the Authors (05 Sep 2014) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (08 Sep 2014) by Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (17 Sep 2014)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Wever et al. have provided complete responses to the comments of two reviewers and have applied the respective changes to the manuscript. In my opinion the paper has significantly improved by now and is almost ready for publication. This study will be a nice contribution to the literature on ROS events. I only have a few minor issues that should be addressed by the authors:

- Page 2, line 8: “This allowed us to …” or “This allowed the quantification …”. Please also check the same issue throughout the paper. Occurs e.g. also on page 9, line 2
- Page 4, line 3: These two sentences say almost the same. Please reformulate.
- Page 10, line 10: In my understanding precipitation is part of the meteorological conditions. So it is not possible to write meteo conditions AND precipitation. I understand the approach but the sentence should be formulated differently.
- Page 10, line 26: Well, I still am a bit skeptical about the replacement of meteorological time series for forcing snow cover evolution at a different elevation / in a different climatological setting. The snow cover (and its water equivalent, snow water storage etc) is a result of the meteorological conditions at this specific site. Strange things might happen if it is suddenly forced by the meteo conditions from a station that is located 500m higher and in another region... But I understand the argumentation of the authors for doing so and the explanations provided in the text. For me, no changes are required here.
- Page 16, line 5: The first sentence can be removed.
- Page 17, line 16: “hours”
- Page 19, line 24: here and elsewhere – why naming a) and b) separately. Both panels (and not only one) are addressed and it would be easier to just write “Figure 10”.
- Page 21, line 7: “dependent on …”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (10 Oct 2014) by Harrie-Jan Hendricks Franssen

AR by Nander Wever on behalf of the Authors (15 Oct 2014) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

We simulated a severe rain-on-snow event in the Swiss Alps in October 2011 with a detailed multi-layer snow cover model. We found a strong modulating effect of the incoming rainfall signal by the snow cover. Initially, water from both rainfall and snow melt was absorbed by the snowpack. But once the snowpack released the stored water, simulated outflow rates exceeded rainfall and snow melt rates. The simulations suggest that structural snowpack changes enhanced the outflow during this event.