the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 18 Mar 2024
Improve iLOVECLIM (version 1.1) with a multi-layer snow model: surface mass balance evolution during the Last Interglacial
Abstract. During the Quaternary, ice sheets experienced several retreat-advanced cycles, strongly influencing climate patterns. In order to properly simulate these phenomena, it is preferable to use physics-based models instead of parameterizations to estimate surface mass balance (SMB) which has a strong influence on the ice sheet evolution. To further investigate the potential of these SMB models, this work evaluates BESSI (BErgen Snow Simulator), a multi-layer snow model with high computational efficiency, as an alternative to providing SMB for paleo studies. First, we validate the snow model using the regional climate model MAR (Modèle Atmosphérique Régional) as forcing and reference for the present-day climate over Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets. The evolution of SMB over the Last Interglacial period (LIG) (130–116 kaBP) is computed by forcing BESSI with transient climate forcing obtained from an Earth system model iLOVECLIM for both ice sheets. For present-day climate conditions, BESSI exhibits good performance compared to MAR despite a much simpler model set-up. The model also captures well the variation of SMB and its components during the LIG. Compared to the current simple melt estimation scheme of iLOVECLIM (ITM), BESSI is able to capture different SMB patterns for two particular ice sheet climate conditions thanks to its higher physical constraints while ITM displays a strong sensitivity to its parameters and input fields (temperature). The findings suggest that BESSI can provide more reliable SMB estimations for the iLOVECLIM framework to improve the model simulations of the ice sheet evolution and interactions with climate.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(16252 KB)
-
Supplement
(3500 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(16252 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3500 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-556', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 May 2024
General comments
The paper by Hoang et al. describes the implementation of the simple surface energy and mass balance model BESSI into the iLOVECLIM Earth system model. First, the performance of BESSI for the simulation of the present-day SMB over Greenland and Antarctica is compared with results of the regional climate model MAR. Then BESSI is driven by climate forcing from iLOVECLIM simulations to show how climate model biases affect the SMB and how the results compare to the insolation-temperature-melt (ITM) method used previously in iLOVECLIM. Finally, transient iLOVECLIM simulations of the last interglacial period are performed and climate fields are used to drive BESSI and estimate the evolution of the SMB and its different components over the time interval from 135 to 115 kyrBP. The results indicate that BESSI and the ITM produce different SMB evolutions for the Greenland ice sheet over this period of time. I have some major comments that should be addressed before this paper can be published in Climate of the Past.
The paper is rather technical, with a large part being dedicated to the description of the BESSI model (which is already described in detail in Born et al. 2018) and model evaluation for the present-day Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This part of the paper would actually better fit the scope of a journal like Geoscientific Model Development. However, I think that there is the potential to make the more scientific part of the paper more prominent to make the publication generally more interesting for readers of Climate of the Past. To make the paper more suitable for Climate of the Past, I would suggest a few changes:
- generally shift the focus of the paper towards the simulations of the LIG
- expand the introduction with some background information about what is known about the climate and ice sheet evolution (in particular Greenland) over the LIG, both from modeling studies and reconstructions (e.g. sea level)
- add a discussion of the implications of the simulated SMB for the Greenland ice sheet evolution over the LIG
- possibly move the Appendix B into the main paper, as the sensitivity analysis is scientifically interesting
BESSI is certainly more physically-based than the original ITM model, but as also acknowledged by the authors, this does not necessarily imply a more realistic representation of the SMB. Nevertheless, at several places in the text the authors make claims like:
- ‘The model also captures well the variation of SMB and its components during the LIG.’
- ‘For long-term simulations in paleo studies, BESSI has proved to be able to provide reliable data in a short time as it has a physical model setup and is computationally inexpensive. Particularly, in this work, BESSI-iLOVECLIM simulates well the SMB evolution during the LIG, following the change of the orbital configuration and carbon dioxide concentration.’
To justify statements like these, at the very least the simulated SMB should be compared with previous modelling studies (e.g. Sommers et al. 2021 but also some of the previous work by the authors themselves).
Simulated temperature (or more generally climate) changes over Greenland during the early phase of the LIG at a time when the GIS was probably similar to its present-day state could be compared with previous modelling studies (e.g. CMIP6 lig127k) and proxy data.Finally, the English usage in this manuscript must be substantial improved to make the text easier to follow.
Minor comments
L. 1: ‘retreat-advanced’ -> ‘retreat-advance’
L. 8: ‘an’ -> ‘the’
L. 11: ITM not defined
L. 16: MaBP is not really a standard abbreviation, possibly use Myr BP or Ma instead?
L. 16: I wouldn’t call glacial cycles ‘events’
L. 36-39: maybe worth mentioning that some EMICs are using more sophisticated SMB schemes (e.g. Calov et al. 2005 and Willeit et al. 2024)
L. 44: ‘physically key’ -> ‘key physical’
L. 57: ‘a’ -> ‘the’
L. 66-67: repetition of ‘annual global mean temperature’
L. 67-68: the cited references do not support the statement that the LIG was globally 2°C warmer than the pre-industrial. Actually, I believe there is an agreement now that the global temperature change was small, with models indicating no significant change (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2021).
L. 68: retreat of glaciers has certainly little to do with global mean temperature changes
L. 127: ‘air temperature is transported to the surface’: I would rather say that it is assumed that the temperature of the snow/rain corresponds to the air temperature, right? Considering that precipitation is formed at higher altitudes above the ground where it is usually colder, is this a good approximation? Maybe also provide some details on how large this flux is under typical conditions.
L. 129-130: please specify the units for precip, particularly because it seems to be expressed in non-SI units of m(water equivalent)/s.
L. 130: why is 273.15 used here and not Ts as for snowfall?
L. 140-148: If I understand this correctly, as long as the mass of the top layer is below 500 kg/m2, BESSI includes only a single layer. Why is that? Considering that for typical snow densities of ~350 kg/m3 this means that a single layer can be ~1.5 meter thick, this implies that the model is not really resolving vertical gradients and processes in the snow pack.
L. 158: Eq. 12 doesn’t consider changes in the liquid water/snow storage in the layers, why?
L. 196: ( missing
L. 286: And how do you deal with the grid cells that are not covered by the iLOVECLIM land domain?
L. 291: ‘climate major pattern’ -> ‘major climate patterns’
L. 327-328: ITM is equally unrealistic, as it completely ignores the sublimation
L. 339-340: sentence unclear
L. 398: remove ‘possibly’
Why not integrate Fig. S1 into Fig. 2?
Fig. 6: Maybe worth specifying that ITM is also driven by iLOVECLIM climate output?
Fig. 6, 8, 11, 12: The colormap for the SMB is not color-blind-friendly.
Fig. 12: wrong units in caption
Table 2: The Melt from the ITM should rather be compared to the Runoff, as refreezing is implicitly accounted for in the ITM model.
References
Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Brady, E. C., Zhao, A., Brierley, C. M., Axford, Y., Capron, E., Govin, A., Hoffman, J. S., Isaacs, E., Kageyama, M., Scussolini, P., Tzedakis, P. C., Williams, C. J. R., Wolff, E., Abe-Ouchi, A., Braconnot, P., Ramos Buarque, S., Cao, J., De Vernal, A., Vittoria Guarino, M., Guo, C., Legrande, A. N., Lohmann, G., Meissner, K. J., Menviel, L., Morozova, P. A., Nisancioglu, K. H., O’Ishi, R., Mélia, D. S. Y., Shi, X., Sicard, M., Sime, L., Stepanek, C., Tomas, R., Volodin, E., Yeung, N. K. H., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Z., and Zheng, W.: Large-scale features of Last Interglacial climate: Results from evaluating the lig127k simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6)-Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP4), Clim. Past, 17, 63–94, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-63-2021, 2021.
Calov, R., Ganopolski, A., Claussen, M., Petoukhov, V., and Greve, R.: Transient simulation of the last glacial inception. Part I: glacial inception as a bifurcation in the climate system, Clim. Dyn., 24, 545–561, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-005-0007-6, 2005.
Willeit, M., Calov, R., Talento, S., Greve, R., Bernales, J., Klemann, V., Bagge, M., and Ganopolski, A.: Glacial inception through rapid ice area increase driven by albedo and vegetation feedbacks, Clim. Past, 20, 597–623, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-597-2024, 2024.
Sommers, A. N., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Lipscomb, W. H., Lofverstrom, M., Shafer, S. L., Bartlein, P. J., Brady, E. C., Kluzek, E., Leguy, G., Thayer-Calder, K., and Tomas, R. A.: Retreat and Regrowth of the Greenland Ice Sheet During the Last Interglacial as Simulated by the CESM2-CISM2 Coupled Climate–Ice Sheet Model, Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatology, 36, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021PA004272, 2021.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-556-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thi Khanh Dieu Hoang, 30 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-556', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 May 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thi Khanh Dieu Hoang, 30 Aug 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-556', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 May 2024
General comments
The paper by Hoang et al. describes the implementation of the simple surface energy and mass balance model BESSI into the iLOVECLIM Earth system model. First, the performance of BESSI for the simulation of the present-day SMB over Greenland and Antarctica is compared with results of the regional climate model MAR. Then BESSI is driven by climate forcing from iLOVECLIM simulations to show how climate model biases affect the SMB and how the results compare to the insolation-temperature-melt (ITM) method used previously in iLOVECLIM. Finally, transient iLOVECLIM simulations of the last interglacial period are performed and climate fields are used to drive BESSI and estimate the evolution of the SMB and its different components over the time interval from 135 to 115 kyrBP. The results indicate that BESSI and the ITM produce different SMB evolutions for the Greenland ice sheet over this period of time. I have some major comments that should be addressed before this paper can be published in Climate of the Past.
The paper is rather technical, with a large part being dedicated to the description of the BESSI model (which is already described in detail in Born et al. 2018) and model evaluation for the present-day Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This part of the paper would actually better fit the scope of a journal like Geoscientific Model Development. However, I think that there is the potential to make the more scientific part of the paper more prominent to make the publication generally more interesting for readers of Climate of the Past. To make the paper more suitable for Climate of the Past, I would suggest a few changes:
- generally shift the focus of the paper towards the simulations of the LIG
- expand the introduction with some background information about what is known about the climate and ice sheet evolution (in particular Greenland) over the LIG, both from modeling studies and reconstructions (e.g. sea level)
- add a discussion of the implications of the simulated SMB for the Greenland ice sheet evolution over the LIG
- possibly move the Appendix B into the main paper, as the sensitivity analysis is scientifically interesting
BESSI is certainly more physically-based than the original ITM model, but as also acknowledged by the authors, this does not necessarily imply a more realistic representation of the SMB. Nevertheless, at several places in the text the authors make claims like:
- ‘The model also captures well the variation of SMB and its components during the LIG.’
- ‘For long-term simulations in paleo studies, BESSI has proved to be able to provide reliable data in a short time as it has a physical model setup and is computationally inexpensive. Particularly, in this work, BESSI-iLOVECLIM simulates well the SMB evolution during the LIG, following the change of the orbital configuration and carbon dioxide concentration.’
To justify statements like these, at the very least the simulated SMB should be compared with previous modelling studies (e.g. Sommers et al. 2021 but also some of the previous work by the authors themselves).
Simulated temperature (or more generally climate) changes over Greenland during the early phase of the LIG at a time when the GIS was probably similar to its present-day state could be compared with previous modelling studies (e.g. CMIP6 lig127k) and proxy data.Finally, the English usage in this manuscript must be substantial improved to make the text easier to follow.
Minor comments
L. 1: ‘retreat-advanced’ -> ‘retreat-advance’
L. 8: ‘an’ -> ‘the’
L. 11: ITM not defined
L. 16: MaBP is not really a standard abbreviation, possibly use Myr BP or Ma instead?
L. 16: I wouldn’t call glacial cycles ‘events’
L. 36-39: maybe worth mentioning that some EMICs are using more sophisticated SMB schemes (e.g. Calov et al. 2005 and Willeit et al. 2024)
L. 44: ‘physically key’ -> ‘key physical’
L. 57: ‘a’ -> ‘the’
L. 66-67: repetition of ‘annual global mean temperature’
L. 67-68: the cited references do not support the statement that the LIG was globally 2°C warmer than the pre-industrial. Actually, I believe there is an agreement now that the global temperature change was small, with models indicating no significant change (Otto-Bliesner et al., 2021).
L. 68: retreat of glaciers has certainly little to do with global mean temperature changes
L. 127: ‘air temperature is transported to the surface’: I would rather say that it is assumed that the temperature of the snow/rain corresponds to the air temperature, right? Considering that precipitation is formed at higher altitudes above the ground where it is usually colder, is this a good approximation? Maybe also provide some details on how large this flux is under typical conditions.
L. 129-130: please specify the units for precip, particularly because it seems to be expressed in non-SI units of m(water equivalent)/s.
L. 130: why is 273.15 used here and not Ts as for snowfall?
L. 140-148: If I understand this correctly, as long as the mass of the top layer is below 500 kg/m2, BESSI includes only a single layer. Why is that? Considering that for typical snow densities of ~350 kg/m3 this means that a single layer can be ~1.5 meter thick, this implies that the model is not really resolving vertical gradients and processes in the snow pack.
L. 158: Eq. 12 doesn’t consider changes in the liquid water/snow storage in the layers, why?
L. 196: ( missing
L. 286: And how do you deal with the grid cells that are not covered by the iLOVECLIM land domain?
L. 291: ‘climate major pattern’ -> ‘major climate patterns’
L. 327-328: ITM is equally unrealistic, as it completely ignores the sublimation
L. 339-340: sentence unclear
L. 398: remove ‘possibly’
Why not integrate Fig. S1 into Fig. 2?
Fig. 6: Maybe worth specifying that ITM is also driven by iLOVECLIM climate output?
Fig. 6, 8, 11, 12: The colormap for the SMB is not color-blind-friendly.
Fig. 12: wrong units in caption
Table 2: The Melt from the ITM should rather be compared to the Runoff, as refreezing is implicitly accounted for in the ITM model.
References
Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Brady, E. C., Zhao, A., Brierley, C. M., Axford, Y., Capron, E., Govin, A., Hoffman, J. S., Isaacs, E., Kageyama, M., Scussolini, P., Tzedakis, P. C., Williams, C. J. R., Wolff, E., Abe-Ouchi, A., Braconnot, P., Ramos Buarque, S., Cao, J., De Vernal, A., Vittoria Guarino, M., Guo, C., Legrande, A. N., Lohmann, G., Meissner, K. J., Menviel, L., Morozova, P. A., Nisancioglu, K. H., O’Ishi, R., Mélia, D. S. Y., Shi, X., Sicard, M., Sime, L., Stepanek, C., Tomas, R., Volodin, E., Yeung, N. K. H., Zhang, Q., Zhang, Z., and Zheng, W.: Large-scale features of Last Interglacial climate: Results from evaluating the lig127k simulations for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6)-Paleoclimate Modeling Intercomparison Project (PMIP4), Clim. Past, 17, 63–94, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-17-63-2021, 2021.
Calov, R., Ganopolski, A., Claussen, M., Petoukhov, V., and Greve, R.: Transient simulation of the last glacial inception. Part I: glacial inception as a bifurcation in the climate system, Clim. Dyn., 24, 545–561, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-005-0007-6, 2005.
Willeit, M., Calov, R., Talento, S., Greve, R., Bernales, J., Klemann, V., Bagge, M., and Ganopolski, A.: Glacial inception through rapid ice area increase driven by albedo and vegetation feedbacks, Clim. Past, 20, 597–623, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-597-2024, 2024.
Sommers, A. N., Otto-Bliesner, B. L., Lipscomb, W. H., Lofverstrom, M., Shafer, S. L., Bartlein, P. J., Brady, E. C., Kluzek, E., Leguy, G., Thayer-Calder, K., and Tomas, R. A.: Retreat and Regrowth of the Greenland Ice Sheet During the Last Interglacial as Simulated by the CESM2-CISM2 Coupled Climate–Ice Sheet Model, Paleoceanogr. Paleoclimatology, 36, 1–19, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021PA004272, 2021.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-556-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Thi Khanh Dieu Hoang, 30 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-556', Anonymous Referee #2, 29 May 2024
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Thi Khanh Dieu Hoang, 30 Aug 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 244 | 92 | 23 | 359 | 48 | 17 | 12 |
- HTML: 244
- PDF: 92
- XML: 23
- Total: 359
- Supplement: 48
- BibTeX: 17
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States of America | 1 | 120 | 27 |
| Germany | 2 | 58 | 13 |
| France | 3 | 49 | 11 |
| China | 4 | 44 | 10 |
| Norway | 5 | 20 | 4 |
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 120
Thi-Khanh-Dieu Hoang
Aurélien Quiquet
Christophe Dumas
Andreas Born
Didier M. Roche
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(16252 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(3500 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper