<?xml version='1.0' encoding='utf-8'?>
<oai_dc:dc xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:oai_dc="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc/ http://www.openarchives.org/OAI/2.0/oai_dc.xsd">
  <dc:contributor>Steven R. Fassnacht</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>David J. Kamin</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Graham A. Sexstone</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>William L. Bauerle</dc:contributor>
  <dc:contributor>Iuliana Oprea</dc:contributor>
  <dc:creator>Jessica E. Sanow</dc:creator>
  <dc:date>2018</dc:date>
  <dc:description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;span&gt;When applied to a snow-covered surface, aerodynamic roughness length,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;, is typically considered as a static parameter within energy balance equations. However, field observations show that&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;changes spatially and temporally, and thus&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;incorporated as a dynamic parameter may greatly improve models. To evaluate methods for characterizing snow surface roughness, we compared concurrent estimates of&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;based on (1) terrestrial light detection and ranging derived surface geometry of the snowpack surface (geometric,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;G&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;) and (2) vertical wind profile measurements (anemometric,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;A&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;). The value of&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;G&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;was computed from Lettau’s equation and underestimated&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;A&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;but compared well when scaled by a factor of 2.34. The Counihan method for computing&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;G&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;was found to be unsuitable for estimating&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;on a snow surface. During snowpack accumulation in early winter,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;varied as a function of the snow-covered area (SCA). Our results show that as the SCA increases,&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span class="html-italic"&gt;z&lt;/span&gt;&lt;sub&gt;0&lt;/sub&gt;&lt;span&gt;&amp;nbsp;decreases, indicating there is a topographic influence on this relation.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/p&gt;</dc:description>
  <dc:format>application/pdf</dc:format>
  <dc:identifier>10.3390/geosciences8120463</dc:identifier>
  <dc:language>en</dc:language>
  <dc:publisher>MDPI</dc:publisher>
  <dc:title>Geometric versus anemometric surface roughness for a shallow accumulating snowpack</dc:title>
  <dc:type>article</dc:type>
</oai_dc:dc>