Assessment reveals TCA-derived errors in snow depth products using ground-based measurements, indicating reliability challenges.
Snow depth is a crucial variable when assessing the hydrological cycle and total water supply. Therefore, thorough and large-scale assessments of the widely used gridded snow depth products are highly important. In previous studies, triple collocation analysis (TCA) was applied as a complementary method to assess various snow depth products. Nevertheless, TCA-derived errors have not yet been validated against ground-based measurements. Specifically, the reliability of the TCA for quantitatively evaluating snow depth datasets remains unknown. In this study, we first generate a long-term snow depth product using our previously proposed remotely sensed retrieval algorithm. Then, we assess the results obtained with this algorithm together with other widely used assimilated (GlobSnow-v3.0) and reanalysis (ERA5-land and MERRA2) products. The reliability of the TCA method is investigated by comparing the errors derived from TCA and from ground-based measurements, as well as their relative performance rankings. Our results reveal that the unRMSE values of snow depth products are highly correlated with the TCA-derived errors, and both provide consistent performance rankings across most areas. However, in northern Xinjiang (NXJ), the TCA-derived errors for MERRA2 are underestimated against the ground-based results. Furthermore, we decomposed the covariance equations of TCA to assess their scientific robustness, and we found that the variance of MERRA2 is low due to the narrow dynamic range and severe underestimation in the snow season. Additionally, any two datasets in the triplet must exhibit correlation, at least displaying the same trend in snow depth. This paper provides a comprehensive assessment of snow depth products and demonstrates the reliability of TCA-based uncertainty analysis, which is particularly useful for applying multiproduct snow depth ensembles in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: