NASA's 2017 SnowEx field campaign at Grand Mesa, CO, generated Airborne Laser Scans (ALS), Terrestrial Laser Scans (TLS), and snow‐probe transects, which allowed for a comparison between snow depth measurement techniques. At six locations, comparisons between gridded ALS and TLS observations, at 1‐m resolution, had a median snow depth difference of 5 cm, root‐mean‐square difference of 16 cm, mean‐absolute difference of 10 cm, and 3‐cm difference in standard deviation. ALS generally had greater but similar snow depth values to TLS, and results were not sensitive to the gridded cell size between 0.5 and 5 m. The greatest disagreements were where snow‐off TLS scans had shrubs and high incidence angles, leading to deeper snow depths (>10 cm) from ALS than TLS. The low vegetation and oblique angles caused occlusion in the TLS data and thus produced higher snow‐off bare Earth models relative to the ALS. Furthermore, in subcanopy areas where both ALS and TLS data existed, snow depth differences were comparable to differences in the open. Meanwhile, median values from 52 snow‐probe transects and near‐coincident ALS data had a mean difference of 6 cm, root‐mean‐square difference of 8 cm, mean‐absolute difference of 7 cm, and a mean difference in the standard deviation of 1 cm. Snow depth probes had greater but similar snow depth values to ALS. Therefore, based on comparisons with TLS and snow depth probes, ALS captured snow depth magnitude with better than or equal agreement to what has been reported in previous studies and showed the ability to capture high‐resolution spatial variability.

The Snow Ensemble Uncertainty Project (SEUP) is an effort to establish a baseline characterization of snow water equivalent (SWE) uncertainty across North America with the goal of informing global snow observational needs. An ensemble-based modeling approach, encompassing a suite of current operational models is used to assess the uncertainty in SWE and total snow storage (SWS) estimation over North America during the 2009–2017 period. The highest modeled SWE uncertainty is observed in mountainous regions, likely due to the relatively deep snow, forcing uncertainties, and variability between the different models in resolving the snow processes over complex terrain. This highlights a need for high-resolution observations in mountains to capture the high spatial SWE variability. The greatest SWS is found in Tundra regions where, even though the spatiotemporal variability in modeled SWE is low, there is considerable uncertainty in the SWS estimates due to the large areal extent over which those estimates are spread. This highlights the need for high accuracy in snow estimations across the Tundra. In midlatitude boreal forests, large uncertainties in both SWE and SWS indicate that vegetation–snow impacts are a critical area where focused improvements to modeled snow estimation efforts need to be made. Finally, the SEUP results indicate that SWE uncertainty is driving runoff uncertainty, and measurements may be beneficial in reducing uncertainty in SWE and runoff, during the melt season at high latitudes (e.g., Tundra and Taiga regions) and in the western mountain regions, whereas observations at (or near) peak SWE accumulation are more helpful over the midlatitudes.

Snow distribution is controlled by the interaction between local meteorology and static features like topography and vegetation. The resulting spatial pattern of snow in mountainous terrain is often repeatable and can be used to infer snowpack distribution at periods when observations are limited. This study uses a library of airborne lidar surveys (ALS) in California's Tuolumne watershed to analyze snow patterns at extents (1,650 km²), resolutions (25 m), and temporal scales (47 ALS observations over 7 years) unmatched by previous research. Distributed snow depth was inferred from snow depth observations covering a portion of the domain (< 4%) at a period near peak‐snowpack timing and snow distribution patterns from different years. Snow patterns from different years differed as a function of snow extents, variability, and interannual noise (r = 0.30 to 0.90). However, matching criteria like seasonal timing and snow extents were able to identify pairs of snow patterns with increased spatial agreement (median r > 0.84). Distributed snow depth inferred using a strip of observations (<4% coverage), and a well‐correlated snow pattern (r≥ 0.90) had a mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.22 m and snow volume error of −6%. Distributed snow depth inferred using patterns of reduced accuracy (r < 0.80) were often too homogeneous, thereby increasing MAE and decreasing the duration of the simulated snowmelt season. This work has applications in water management, where distributed snow depth observations in watersheds with interannual snow pattern repeatability could decrease the extent of observations necessary in future years.

Repeatable snow depth patterns have been identified in many regions between years with similar meteorological characteristics. This suggests that snow patterns from previous years could adjust snow deposition in space as a substitution for unmodeled snow processes. Here, we tested a pattern‐based snow deposition downscaling routine which assumes (a) a spatially consistent relationship between snow deposition and snow depth, (b) interannually repeatable snow patterns, and (c) unbiased mean snowfall. We investigated these assumptions, and future avenues for improvement, in water‐year 2014 over the California Tuolumne River Watershed. 6 km snowfall from an atmospheric model was downscaled to 25 m resolution using snow depth patterns from seven different years, and was compared to a more common terrain‐based downscaling method. Snow depth patterns were influenced not only by snow accumulation, but also snowmelt, snow sublimation, and snow density, resulting in pattern‐based snow deposition downscaling that was too spatially heterogeneous. However, snow depth simulated using terrain‐based downscaling was too spatially homogeneous, and less spatially correlated with observations (r = 0.27), than simulations with pattern‐based downscaling using snow depth patterns from the simulation season (r = 0.76), or from a different year (r = 0.52). Overall, modeled snow depth errors at peak‐snowpack timing were driven more by atmospheric model snowfall biases than different downscaling methods. In order of most‐ to least‐importance, future research should focus on bias‐correcting coarse‐scale snowfall estimates, correcting snow deposition patterns for winter snow losses and snow density spatial variability, and identifying the historic periods of most‐similar snow accumulation.

Mountain winds are the driving force behind snow accumulation patterns in mountainous catchments, making accurate wind fields a prerequisite to accurate simulations of snow depth for ecological or water resource applications. In this study, we examine the effect that wind fields derived from different coarse data sets and downscaling schemes has on simulations of modeled snow depth at resolutions suitable for basin‐scale modeling (>50 m). Simulations are run over the Tuolumne River Basin, CA for the accumulation season of Water Year 2017 using the distributed snow model, SnowModel. We derived wind fields using observations from either sensor networks, the North American Land Data Assimilation System (12.5 km resolution), or High‐Resolution Rapid Refresh (HRRR, 3 km resolution) data, and downscaled using terrain‐based multipliers (MicroMet), a mass‐conserving flow model (WindNinja), or bilinear interpolation. Two wind fields derived from 3 km HRRR data and downscaled with respect to terrain produced snow depth maps that best matched observations of snow depth from airborne LiDAR. We find that modeling these wind fields at 100 and 50 m resolutions do not produce improvements in simulated snow depth when compared to wind fields modeled at a 150 m resolution due to their inability to represent wind dynamics at these scales. For input to distributed snow models at the basin‐scale, we recommend deriving wind fields from high resolution numerical weather prediction model output and downscaling with respect to terrain. Future studies should compare suspension schemes used in blowing snow models and investigate wind downscaling schemes of complexity between statistical and fluid dynamic models.