the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Runoff from Greenland's firn area – why do MODIS, RCMs and a firn model disagree?
Abstract. Due to increasing air temperatures, surface melt and meltwater runoff expand to ever higher elevations on the Greenland ice sheet and reach far into its firn area. Here, we evaluate how two regional climate models (RCMs) simulate the expansion of the ice sheet runoff area: MAR, and RACMO with its offline firn model IMAU-FDM. For the purpose of this comparison we first improve an existing algorithm to detect daily visible runoff limits from MODIS satellite imagery. We then apply the improved algorithm to most of the Greenland ice sheet and compare MODIS to RCM runoff limits for the years 2000 to 2021. We find that RACMO/IMAU-FDM runoff limits are on average somewhat lower than MODIS and show little fluctuations from year to year. MAR runoff limits are substantially higher than MODIS, but their relative fluctuations are more similar to MODIS. Both models apply a bucket scheme where meltwater is routed vertically. On the example of the K-transect we demonstrate that differences in the implementation of the bucket scheme are responsible for the disparity in RCM simulated runoff limits. The formulation of the runoff condition is of large influence: in RACMO/IMAU-FDM meltwater is only considered runoff when it reaches the bottom of the simulated firn pack; in MAR runoff can also occur from within the firn pack, which largely causes its higher runoff limits. We show that total runoff along the K-transect, simulated by the two RCMs, diverges by up to 29 % in extraordinary melt years. Out of this, three quarters are caused by the differences in the simulated runoff limits, the remainder being mostly due to differences in simulated ablation area runoff. Consequently, accurate simulation of meltwater hydrology in a melting firn area is essential to assess Greenland's current and future mass changes.
- Preprint
(6998 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 18 Nov 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2750', Anonymous Referee #1, 23 Oct 2024
reply
Review of Machguth et al. 2024
This paper provides an update to a methodology to determine runoff limits on the Greenland Ice Sheet from MODIS and in addition investigates differences in runoff from these observations as well as MAR and IMAU-FDM models, partially in RACMO.
While there is clearly some new science in this paper I would argue it needs some major revision if it seeks to answer the question posed in the paper title. The research goal of the paper is unclear, is it to introduce an improved method for using satellite data, or to compare different methods for calculating runoff? I would argue that for either improvements are needed, due to the following reasoning.
- The new methodology for improving detection of runoff limits from MODIS is not compared with other remote sensing methods, or with the previous method in Machguth 2022. Although the improvement here is that the method can now be used in more areas, without any validation or comparison it is impossible to judge the validity of the method.
- The authors make suggestions as to why MAR and RACMO/IMAU-FDM may differ but can’t actually evidence this. An RCM and a firn model are very different things, and while it is clear that there is a difference in the implementation of vertical water percolation between the two, that is not the only difference between them. A firn model is run on a very different vertical resolution and will be dependent on RACMO forcing in this case, which will also influence the runoff. The bucket method may only be part of the story as the paper does not compare like for like, or truly compare the two RCMs, or explain why they differ from MODIS completely.
Below I provide line by line comments to add detail to the above.
Title- The paper doesn’t really compare RCMs (plural). It jumps from sometimes including RACMO, sometimes IMAU-FDM forced by RACMO, but to really compare RCMs a full comparison of MAR and RACMO would be needed.
Line 9- The paper does not demonstrate that the difference in implementation of the bucket scheme are responsible for the disparity, only that this is a possible explanation posited by the authors.
Line 18- Suggest addition of ‘among’ our most advanced tools here. Remote sensing, firn models etc. are all advanced tools that contribute to our understanding.
Line 19- Do all these papers actually say RCMs are our most advanced tool? E.g. are they not a part of some of the methodologies described in IMBIE?
Line 46- Confused by the use of the word ‘oppose’ here, how do you oppose the runoff limits?
Line 46- Landsat is mentioned here- why would MODIS be used instead of Landsat? The context is missing here, and a reference for any work done with Landsat as well as justification for why the results in this paper are not compared to any results using Landsat.
Line 75- This is further evidence that MAR vs IMAU-FDM is not a straightforward comparison and that there may be other reasons for differences between them.
Line 80- Again this makes me more confused why Landsat isn’t used, or at least compared against for the MODIS methodology.
Line 94- Does the new method give the same results for the areas covered in Machguth 2022?
Line 105-‘used no more’ or better might be ‘not used’.
Line 105- Is the difference between clean and dirty ice a function of water depth? This doesn’t quite make sense, clean ice, dirty ice and ponded water are different things.
Line 137- Could the differences in albedo scheme also contribute to the differences in runoff found between this model and MAR?
Section 3.2 Please state clearly how IMAU-FDM does (or doesn’t) deal with ice lenses given this is a key difference with MAR.
Line 172- Could the lack of masking for smaller aquifers influence the results?
Line 184- How do the detections in the Tedstone paper compare to those made here?
Section 4.2.1 I found this section and the jumping between RACMO and IMAU-FDM confusing. I would suggest either having a full comparison of MAR, RACMO and IMAU-FDM, or removing the RACMO here as it’s not clear what it adds when it’s only partially included.
Figure 7- This figure to me is the one that really made me question the comparisons made here. It shows very clearly that MAR and IMAU-FDM are working on very different scales and thus capturing different processes, and the suggestion that differences are due to bucket methodology over simplifies this.
Line 311- Is this a lack of inertia or just that processes are not accounted for?
Line 318- This paragraph is confusingly written. It starts by comparing RACMO and IMAU-FDM, then compares MAR and RACMO, but not IMAU-FDM and MAR. Stating that RACMO and IMAU-FDM show similar temporal patterns here is hardly surprising given that one forces the other. The RACMO firn model is also mentioned here but hasn’t been detailed before.
Section 5.2- As stated above I don’t think this paragraph shows the bucket scheme is the main cause of deviations. Several other differences between IMAU-FDM and MAR are mentioned but without justification as to why they are less important.
Line 386- Proof that this is an improved method is missing. It might cover more areas but it is not validated.
Section A2- Please make clearer how this differs from the 2022 paper.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2750-RC1 - The new methodology for improving detection of runoff limits from MODIS is not compared with other remote sensing methods, or with the previous method in Machguth 2022. Although the improvement here is that the method can now be used in more areas, without any validation or comparison it is impossible to judge the validity of the method.
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2750', Anonymous Referee #2, 13 Nov 2024
reply
see attached pdf.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
193 | 53 | 8 | 254 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 193
- PDF: 53
- XML: 8
- Total: 254
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1