the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Meltwater runoff and glacier mass balance in the high Arctic: 1991–2022 simulations for Svalbard
Louise Steffensen Schmidt
Thomas V. Schuler
Erin Emily Thomas
Sebastian Westermann
Abstract. The Arctic is undergoing increased warming compared to the global mean, which has major implications for fresh-water runoff into the oceans from seasonal snow and glaciers. Here, we present high-resolution (2.5 km) simulations of glacier mass balance, runoff and snow conditions in Svalbard from 1991–2022, one of the fastest warming regions in the Arctic. The simulations are created using the CryoGrid community model forced by both CARRA reanalysis (1991–2021) and AROME-ARCTIC forecasts (2016–2022). Updates to the water percolation and runoff scheme are implemented in the CryoGrid model for the simulations. In-situ observations available for Svalbard are used to carefully evaluate the quality of the simulations and model forcing. The overlap period of 2016–2021, when both CARRA and AROME-ARCTIC data are available, is used to evaluate the consistency between the two forcing datasets.
We find a slightly negative climatic mass balance (cmb) over the simulation period of −0.08 m w.e. yr−1, but with no statistically significant trend. The average runoff was found to be 41 Gt yr−1, with an significant increasing trend of 6.3 Gt decade−1. In addition, we find the simulated climatic mass balance and runoff using CARRA and AROME-ARCTIC forcing are similar, and differ by only 0.1 m w.e. in climatic mass balance and by 0.2 m w.e. in glacier runoff when averaged over all of Svalbard. There is, however, a clear difference over Nordenskiöldland, where AROME-ARCTIC simulates significantly higher mass balance and significantly lower runoff. This indicates that AROME-ARCTIC may provide high-quality predictions of the total mass balance of Svalbard, but regional uncertainties should be taken into consideration.
The data produced from both the CARRA and AROME-ARCTIC forced CryoGrid simulations are made publicly available, and these high resolution simulation may be re-used in a wide range of applications including studies on glacial runoff, ocean currents, and ecosystems
- Preprint
(2584 KB) -
Supplement
(599 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Louise Steffensen Schmidt et al.
Status: open (until 24 Apr 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2022-1409', Anonymous Referee #1, 09 Mar 2023
reply
While this paper is well written and figures are fine, the topic of this paper does not fit with The Cryosphere journal as no new scientific result is presented here. Only models development and models validation with in situ observations and previous SMB estimates are presented here. I suggest then to the authors to resubmit their paper in GMD (Geoscientific Model Development) which fits a lot of better with this kind of papers.
Before resubmission, I would just like to highlight that I don’t see the interest of the addition of AROME-ARCTIC as forcing of the snow model in this paper. With respect to CARRA, AROME-ARCTIC is an operational product forced by IFS and can not be used in any scientific relevant papers knowing that ERA5 is available in real time with a delay of 1 week with the present date and only using AROME-ARCTIC forced by ERA5 will be relevant here for me. If the aim of the authors is to show the interest of AROME-ARCTIC used in forecast mode, I suggest in this case to change the focus of the paper to this aim by considering only 2016-2021. But, discussing the recent changes over 1991-2021 + evaluating the interest of AROME-ARCTIC over 2016-2021 in the same time decreases the interest of the paper for me.
Some additional minor remarks:
- The use of the words "climatic mass balance" or "glacier mass balance" is ambiguous here for me as both mean surface mass balance. I suggest than to use SMB everywhere in the paper.
- In Section 5.6, runoff is given in GT/yr while SMB/precip is discussed in mWE/yr. I suggest to use the same units (m WE/yr or GT/yr) through all the paper.
- What is the interest of Section 5.4? It is mainly a comparison between CARRA and AROME-ARCTIC forcing but what are impacts of the seasonal snowpack recent changes on SMB or climate? A comparison with observations could be useful if the aim is to validate it.
- In conclusion, increases in land runoff is mentioned without having discussed more in depth changes in precipitation (rainfall/snowfall). Discussing land vs glacier trend will be useful here in addition to use the same units for precipitation and runoff. More in general, what is the interest of discussing here the land runoff changes? What are the impacts on ocean? Are there some observations confirming this modelled estimate?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1409-RC1
Louise Steffensen Schmidt et al.
Data sets
CryoGrid simulations of Svalbard mass balance, refreezing and runoff, 1991–2022 Louise Steffensen Schmidt https://doi.org/10.21343/ncwc-s086
Model code and software
CryoGrid Community model Sebastian Westermann, Thomas Ingeman-Nielsen, Robin Zweigel, Juditha Aga, and Jan Nitzbon https://github.com/CryoGrid/CryoGridCommunity_source
Louise Steffensen Schmidt et al.
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 170 | 81 | 6 | 257 | 26 | 5 | 3 |
- HTML: 170
- PDF: 81
- XML: 6
- Total: 257
- Supplement: 26
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1