the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modelling Cold Firn Evolution at Colle Gnifetti, Swiss/Italian Alps
Abstract. The existence of cold firn within the European Alps provides an invaluable source of paleo-climatic data with the capability to reveal the nature of anthropogenic forcing in Western Europe over the preceding centuries. Unfortunately, continued atmospheric warming has initiated the thermal degradation of cold firn to that of a temperate firn facie, where infiltrating meltwater compromises this vital archive. However, there is currently limited knowledge regarding the physical transition of firn between these different thermal regimes. We present the application of a modified version of the spatially distributed Coupled Snow and Ice Model in Python (COSIPY) to the high-altitude glacierised saddle of Colle Gnifetti of the Monte Rosa massif, Swiss/Italian Alps. Forced by an extensively quality-checked meteorological time series from the Capanna Margherita (4,560 m a.s.l.), with a distributed accumulation model to represent the prevalent on-site wind scouring patterns, the evolution of the cold firn's thermal regime is investigated between 2003 and 2023. Our results show a prolongation of previously identified trends of increasing surface melt at a rate of 0.54 cm w.e. yr−2 – representing a doubling over the 21-year period. This influx of additional meltwater and the resulting latent heat release from refreezing at depth, drives englacial warming at a rate of 0.056 °C yr−1, comparable to in-situ measurements. Since 1991, a measured warming of 1.5 °C (0.046 °C yr−1) has been observed at 20 m depth with a marked rotation in the temperature gradient in the uppermost 30 metres of the glacier – also partially reproduced by our model. In lower altitude regions (∼4,300 m a.s.l.), simulated warming is much greater than the local rate of atmospheric warming resulting in a rapid transition from cold to temperate firn – potentially indicative of future conditions at Colle Gnifetti. However, the simulation is very sensitive to changes to the model's parameterisation in this area and validation data is scarce. We also reveal how small changes to the model spin-up have a major influence on the evolution of the modelled thermal regime.
- Preprint
(15727 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2892', Anonymous Referee #1, 04 Dec 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-2892', Adrien Gilbert, 06 Dec 2024
This study presents the application of the COSIPY model to simulate firn temperature evolution in a cold accumulation zone at Colle Gnifetti. The model is 1D but spatially distributed to map the firn temperature evolution over the whole study area. The model solves the surface energy balance in a skin layer to estimate surface temperature and melting. These variables are used to force a 1D firn model that solves for snow densification, water percolation and refreezing, and heat diffusion. The results show overall good agreement with the extensive firn temperature measurements carried out for many years at Colle Gnifetti and confirm the previously identified strong spatial variability of firn temperature, which is primarily controlled by surface melt. The study quantifies the current firn warming trend and provides a useful estimate of future firn warming at high altitude. The authors highlight some model limitations, particularly the influence of the initial temperature profile after spin-up or the choice of percolation scheme.
The manuscript is clear, well written with nice figures, and investigates an important topic as firn warming controls the strong ongoing change in the glacier thermal regime at high elevations. However, I am surprised that the authors try to publish a very similar study as Mattea et al. (2021) without any significant differences. The figures, the paper structure, the data and the model are more or less the same. Some small modifications and parameter tuning have been done that lead to slightly different results, but I do not think it is worth a new publication just for that. I actually found the discussion of Mattea et al. (2021) more interesting.
Nevertheless, I think the manuscript can still be published in The Cryosphere if the authors make an effort to distinguish their study from Mattea et al. (2021). I have made some suggestions in this sense in the general comments below, which I encourage the authors to do.
Best regards,
Adrien Gilbert
General comments
- The study would be more interesting if the sensitivity of the results to the different parameters were clearly analyzed and reported. In particular, I miss the influence of the modification you made compared to Mattea et al. (2021). How sensitive is the result to penetrating radiation? To surface roughness? To thermal conductivity ? To percolation depth? This exercise has already been partially done in the appendix of Mattea et al. (2021) by single parameter modification (2 values). This could be done in more detail in this study by better exploring the parameter space and the associated modeled temperature change.
- You mention a high-resolution thermistor chain at SP that allows to identify a significant 4m-deep temperature increase in 21 days. It would be interesting to see how the model compares to this record in detail to potentially identify the origin of the model bias. This is especially interesting because summer 2022 has the most intense high altitude melt ever recorded ...
- The authors highlight, as in Mattea et al. (2021), the strong influence of the imposed percolation depth and suggest that a more physical approach would be better but nothing has been done. Implementing an alternative, more physical approach (even simple), for water percolation would be an improvement/modification that would better justify a new paper. You could also use your high-resolution thermistor chain at SP to validate the percolation scheme.
- The model tends to have a cold bias compared to the observation. It would be interesting to identify the origin of this bias. A detailed comparison of model and data at a selected site could help. I think it is possible to show if the bias comes from heat conduction, vertical advection, missing energy input within the snowpack (radiation penetration?), or from too cold surface temperature from the SEB model? Or something else?
Specific comments
You will find a list of corrections and specific comments embedded in the annotated PDF in attachment.
- The study would be more interesting if the sensitivity of the results to the different parameters were clearly analyzed and reported. In particular, I miss the influence of the modification you made compared to Mattea et al. (2021). How sensitive is the result to penetrating radiation? To surface roughness? To thermal conductivity ? To percolation depth? This exercise has already been partially done in the appendix of Mattea et al. (2021) by single parameter modification (2 values). This could be done in more detail in this study by better exploring the parameter space and the associated modeled temperature change.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
222 | 52 | 90 | 364 | 4 | 6 |
- HTML: 222
- PDF: 52
- XML: 90
- Total: 364
- BibTeX: 4
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1