Articles | Volume 16, issue 3
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-1007-2022
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-1007-2022
Research article
 | 
15 Mar 2022
Research article |  | 15 Mar 2022

Evaluation of Northern Hemisphere snow water equivalent in CMIP6 models during 1982–2014

Kerttu Kouki, Petri Räisänen, Kari Luojus, Anna Luomaranta, and Aku Riihelä

Related authors

Characterizing precipitation and soil moisture drydowns in Finland using SMAP satellite data
Kerttu Kouki and Andreas Colliander
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-245,https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-245, 2025
Short summary
Detecting snowfall events over the Arctic using optical and microwave satellite measurements
Emmihenna Jääskeläinen, Kerttu Kouki, and Aku Riihelä
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 3855–3870, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3855-2024,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-3855-2024, 2024
Short summary
Evaluation of snow cover properties in ERA5 and ERA5-Land with several satellite-based datasets in the Northern Hemisphere in spring 1982–2018
Kerttu Kouki, Kari Luojus, and Aku Riihelä
The Cryosphere, 17, 5007–5026, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-5007-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-5007-2023, 2023
Short summary
Download
Short summary
We analyze state-of-the-art climate models’ ability to describe snow mass and whether biases in modeled temperature or precipitation can explain the discrepancies in snow mass. In winter, biases in precipitation are the main factor affecting snow mass, while in spring, biases in temperature becomes more important, which is an expected result. However, temperature or precipitation cannot explain all snow mass discrepancies. Other factors, such as models’ structural errors, are also significant.
Share