the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Emulating the future distribution of perennial firn aquifers in Antarctica
Abstract. Perennial firn aquifers (PFAs) are year-round bodies of liquid water within firn, which modulate meltwater runoff to crevasses, potentially impacting ice-shelf and ice-sheet stability. Recently identified in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), PFAs form in regions with both high surface melt and snow accumulation rates, and are expected to expand due to the anticipated increase in melt and snowfall. Using a firn model to predict future Antarctic PFAs for multiple climatic forcings is computationally expensive. To overcome this, we developed an XGBoost emulator, a fast machine learning model, to approximate a firn model. The PFA emulator was trained with simulations from the firn densification model IMAU-FDM, forced by three emission scenarios (SSP1-2.6, SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5) of the combined regional climate model (RCM) RACMO2.3p2 and general circulation model (GCM) CESM2. Using a scenario and spatial blocking evaluation approach, we found that the emulator successfully explains at least 89 % of PFA presence and meltwater storage variance. Using the PFA emulator, we predict future PFAs (2015–2100) for nine additional forcings from the RCMs MAR and HIRHAM in combination with five GCMs. Under SSP1-2.6 and SSP2-4.5, PFAs remain mostly restricted to the AP. For SSP5-8.5, PFAs expand to Ellsworth Land in West Antarctica, and Enderby Land in East Antarctica. For climatic forcings from RACMO and MAR, we find that liquid water input (melt and rain) and snow accumulation are good predictors for PFA occurrence. However, HIRHAM predicts considerably less surface melt and accumulation for a given temperature than MAR and RACMO do, resulting in less realistic PFA predictions. Overall, our findings show that PFAs will likely expand in a warmer Antarctica, irrespective of the emission scenario.
- Preprint
(6163 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(1109 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 19 Dec 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2855', Irina Overeem, 14 Nov 2024
reply
Summary
We are a graduate seminar at the University of Colorado, consisting of PhD. students in geophysics, geomorphology, cryosphere, and tectonics at varying stages into our graduate degree research years and the professor teaching the seminar (the undersigned).
We all read this paper, discussed it as a group in two seminar sessions, and came up with suggestions for the paper. Then we wrote up sections of this review in pairs or alone. We understand that this type of response is irregular, but present it without expectation, and hope it can be useful.
This study presents a new gradient boost based emulator of a perennial firn aquifer (PFA) model. The authors validate the emulator with multiple different climate forcings, and then use the emulator to compare the impact of different climate scenarios and models on PFA size. As a group we both enjoyed this paper and felt that it was well-written and a significant contribution to the literature, however we suggest some changes to the introduction, oorganization and discussion of the paper to make the specifics of the work, and its value more clear.
Notes for improvement:
In the introduction, we felt that the motivating or overarching purpose of the paper was unclear to the broader cryosphere audience. More time was spent explaining known instability on ice sheets in Antarctica (which is good) but we feel that it would be helpful to add more information and context of why PFAs are important.
In this context it may help to clarify the link between PFAs and known processes happening in ice sheets. More evidence towards the importance and function of PFAs, would help solidify the purpose of this paper.
Similarly, the paper seems to be method focused, but the motivation for these methods was not clearly defined within the introduction. A minor note is that reducing the use of acronyms may be beneficial to people who are not as familiar with this topic and the subsections of Antarctica. Redefining the major acronyms at the beginning of new sections would help reinforce these terms for the reader.
We believed that this was a predominantly methods-focused paper, but we felt that the motivation for these methods was not clearly defined within the introduction, especially for a broader audience in the cryosphere community. While we liked that time was spent explaining known instability on Antarctic ice sheets, we thought that it would be helpful to add more context for why PFAs are important. As a start, we would like to see a more clearly defined link between PFAs and known processes in ice sheets. Another minor suggestion is to reduce the use of acronyms may be beneficial to people who are not as familiar with this topic and the subsections of Antarctica. Redefining the major acronyms at the beginning of new sections would help reinforce these terms for the reader.
The methods section could benefit from a clearer explanation of the data flow behind the development of the machine learning algorithm with use of the IMAU-PFA model, and its application (and the climate models used as input). This could take the form of transition sentences between individual paragraphs to emphasize which results are emulated or modeled, which are just input data. In addition, a workflow diagram can clarify this process, especially for those unfamiliar with the range of available climate models. We think it could be made more clear when data is presented in figures and otherwise are clearly labeled as input or modeled versus emulated results. Such clarification would also serve to make the contribution of the emulator clearer.
Again in the discussion a few notes on the broader context and significance may help. While this paper/study demonstrates the projected expansion of PFAs under different climate scenarios, it would benefit a cross section of the cryosphere community with a more comprehensive discussion linking the expansion of PFAs to the stability of the Antarctic ice sheet and broader climate impacts (i.e. sea-level rise).
We did appreciate Section 5.4 as being succinct. It briefly explores the transient life cycle of PFAs and their implications for icesheet stability, but it could benefit from a clearer connection to the study’s findings. More explicitly linking the formation, expansion, and eventual depletion of PFAs to potential impacts on specific ice shelves - under varying accumulation and warming conditions (different climate models) - could strengthen the discussion.
We suggest that situating PFAs within the context of ice-sheet mass balance and the climate system could help highlight why understanding PFA distribution is a critical component in forecasting future ice-sheet stability and sea-level implications.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-2855-CC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
139 | 39 | 15 | 193 | 39 | 2 | 3 |
- HTML: 139
- PDF: 39
- XML: 15
- Total: 193
- Supplement: 39
- BibTeX: 2
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1