the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 08 Feb 2024
Changes in Antarctic surface conditions and potential for ice shelf hydrofracturing from 1850 to 2200
Abstract. A mixed statistical-physical approach is used to emulate the spatio-temporal variability of the Antarctic ice sheet surface mass balance and runoff of a regional climate model. We demonstrate the ability of this simple method to extend existing MAR simulations to other periods, scenarios or climate models, that were not originally processed through the regional climate model. This method is useful to quickly populate ensembles of surface mass balance and runoff which are needed to constrain ice sheet model ensembles.
After correcting the distribution of equilibrium climate sensitivity of 16 climate models, we find a likely contribution of surface mass balance to sea level rise of 0.4 to 2.2 cm from 1900 to 2010, and -3.4 to -0.1 cm from 2100 to 2099 under the SSP1-2.6 scenario, versus -4.4 to -1.4 cm under SSP2-4.5 and -7.8 to -4.0 cm under SSP5-8.5. Based on a more limited and uncorrected ensemble, we find a considerable uncertainty in the contribution to sea level from 2000 to 2200: between -10 and -1 cm in SSP1-2.6 and between -33 and +6 cm in SSP5-8.5.
Based on a runoff criteria in our reconstructions, we identify the emergence of surface conditions prone to hydrofracturing. A majority of ice shelves could remain safe from hydrofracturing under the SSP1-2.6 scenario, but all the Antarctic ice shelves could be prone to hydrofracturing before 2130 under the SSP5-8.5 scenario.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of The Cryosphere.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.-
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
(19261 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(19261 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-58', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicolas Jourdain, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-58/egusphere-2024-58-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicolas Jourdain, 15 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-58', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Mar 2024
Review of
Changes in Antarctic surface conditions and potential for ice shelf hydrofracturing from 1850 to 2200
By Jourdain and others
General
This is an interesting paper that addresses an important problem: when can we expect runoff from Antarctic ice shelves, leading to mass loss and/or meltwater ponding which is commonly regarded as a precursor for ice shelf hydrofracture. The authors use multiple MAR simulations of future Antarctic climates, with which they calibrate a simple statistical model to emulate melt, runoff so as to approximate SMB and (instantaneous) firn saturation. Not considered are sublimation, rain and the time it takes to saturate the firn. When compared directly to MAR output, the emulator gives mixed results, yet provides valuable insights in the uncertainties that arise from the driving global models. The writing can be clarified in places (see below), the figures are generally clear.Major comments
The abstract is at places confusing. It goes in one step from describing runoff emulation to AIS SLR contribution. Although it is stated that the mass loss numbers are based on SMB alone, the link that is made to hydrofracturing in the title and the presented numbers in terms of sea level rise could trick the reader into thinking that dynamical effects are also considered. It should be made clear from the outset is that this study treats runoff in two ways: as a source of mass loss and as a threshold to induce ponding and hydrofracturing (after which the dynamical effect on the ice sheet is not considered).Also in the abstract: "Based on a more limited and uncorrected ensemble, we find a considerable uncertainty in the contribution to sea level from 2000 to 2200". It is unclear whether this enhanced uncertainty derives from the fact that the ensemble is smaller and uncorrected, or from the method, or all of these. Please only include major results in the abstract, the details can be elaborated upon in the text.
l.59: The statistical model is based on MAR data, which is a fair choice given that this model has been used for multiple future runs. But for the statistical model to be useful, MAR must provide reliable runoff. Here it is stated that the atmosphere in MAR is coupled to a 30 layer snow model "...representing the first 20 m of snow/firn with refined resolution at the surface". But in many places the firn layer in Antarctica is considerably deeper than 20 m? What does this imply for runoff simulated by MAR? See also my comments on treatment of percolation and runoff evaluation below.
l.65: " If liquid water is not able to percolate further down, then it fills the entire porosity space of surface layers, and the excess is considered as runoff and removed from the snow/firn model (there is no representation of ponds or horizontal routing)". From this description it is not clear to me how water percolation interacts with ice lenses in the firn layer and how the process of filling up works before runoff starts.
l.67: "The surface mass balance and melting conditions produced by MAR have been evaluated in comparison to observational." Has there also been an attempt to evaluate the modelled meltwater ponding/runoff? I seem to remember that Van Wessem et al. (2023) compared their predicted ponding potential to satellite observations of melt ponds.
Figure 1 shows results for the integrated grounded ice/ice shelves only. How do the spatial patterns look?
Minor commentsl. 12: "Based on a runoff criteria.." Please note that 'criteria' is plural, so either use "Based on runoff criteria.." or "Based on a runoff criterion.."
l. 12: "we identify the emergence of surface conditions prone to hydrofracturing" Suggest: "we identify the timing of surface conditions that make ice shelves prone to hydrofracturing" or something similar.
l. 13: " A majority of ice shelves could remain safe" Suggest to reformulate: "Our results suggest that the majority..."
l.16: precipitation -> snowfall
l. 18: However, if air temperatures exceed -> However, model simulations suggest that, if atmospheric warming exceeds
l. 22: can be conducive of -> can be conducive to
l. 31: sea level -> sea level change
l. 36: in particular with regard to firn saturation by meltwater and subsequent runoff -> in particular with regard to firn saturation by meltwater and subsequent ponding
l. 87: Eq. 1: At what level is the warming specified? For this expression to be accurate, the warming should be weighted over the atmospheric column in which the water vapour resides. This is different for Eq. 2 (l. 92), where near-surface warming can be used.
l. 103: surface -> near-surface (I assume)
l. 108: " The m parameter is introduced to avoid unrealistically high melt rates" Can you provide a value, and how is it determined? Ah, it is provided in l. 120, but is given in kg m-1 s-1. Can you provide a more intuitive value, i.e. what this means per year?
l. 109-112: This is unclear, please clarify.
l. 180: typo "ooverestimated"
l.231: " Our projections over the grounded ice until 2100 agree quite well with previous estimates of sea level contribution reported by the IPCC for the three scenarios". Can these numbers be compared, i.e. did these IPCC assessments also report estimates based on SMB-only?
Section 3.2: It would be informative to provide the modelled atmospheric warming of the various models in addition to the SMB and runoff. Main motivation is that some models project negative SMB over the grounded ice sheet in the 22nd century, which must require a very strong warming, as well as significant rainfall. For these extremes, how well does the initial assumption hold that rainfall remains small?
l. 293: lead -> led
l. 294: Georges -> George
l. 323: "...while it can take more than a decade to saturate it if melt rates are just above the threshold..." Theoretically, it can take an almost infinite amount of time if the threshold is just passed.
l. 363: criteria -> criterion
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-58-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nicolas Jourdain, 20 Jun 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-58', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Mar 2024
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicolas Jourdain, 15 Mar 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2024/egusphere-2024-58/egusphere-2024-58-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Nicolas Jourdain, 15 Mar 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-58', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Mar 2024
Review of
Changes in Antarctic surface conditions and potential for ice shelf hydrofracturing from 1850 to 2200
By Jourdain and others
General
This is an interesting paper that addresses an important problem: when can we expect runoff from Antarctic ice shelves, leading to mass loss and/or meltwater ponding which is commonly regarded as a precursor for ice shelf hydrofracture. The authors use multiple MAR simulations of future Antarctic climates, with which they calibrate a simple statistical model to emulate melt, runoff so as to approximate SMB and (instantaneous) firn saturation. Not considered are sublimation, rain and the time it takes to saturate the firn. When compared directly to MAR output, the emulator gives mixed results, yet provides valuable insights in the uncertainties that arise from the driving global models. The writing can be clarified in places (see below), the figures are generally clear.Major comments
The abstract is at places confusing. It goes in one step from describing runoff emulation to AIS SLR contribution. Although it is stated that the mass loss numbers are based on SMB alone, the link that is made to hydrofracturing in the title and the presented numbers in terms of sea level rise could trick the reader into thinking that dynamical effects are also considered. It should be made clear from the outset is that this study treats runoff in two ways: as a source of mass loss and as a threshold to induce ponding and hydrofracturing (after which the dynamical effect on the ice sheet is not considered).Also in the abstract: "Based on a more limited and uncorrected ensemble, we find a considerable uncertainty in the contribution to sea level from 2000 to 2200". It is unclear whether this enhanced uncertainty derives from the fact that the ensemble is smaller and uncorrected, or from the method, or all of these. Please only include major results in the abstract, the details can be elaborated upon in the text.
l.59: The statistical model is based on MAR data, which is a fair choice given that this model has been used for multiple future runs. But for the statistical model to be useful, MAR must provide reliable runoff. Here it is stated that the atmosphere in MAR is coupled to a 30 layer snow model "...representing the first 20 m of snow/firn with refined resolution at the surface". But in many places the firn layer in Antarctica is considerably deeper than 20 m? What does this imply for runoff simulated by MAR? See also my comments on treatment of percolation and runoff evaluation below.
l.65: " If liquid water is not able to percolate further down, then it fills the entire porosity space of surface layers, and the excess is considered as runoff and removed from the snow/firn model (there is no representation of ponds or horizontal routing)". From this description it is not clear to me how water percolation interacts with ice lenses in the firn layer and how the process of filling up works before runoff starts.
l.67: "The surface mass balance and melting conditions produced by MAR have been evaluated in comparison to observational." Has there also been an attempt to evaluate the modelled meltwater ponding/runoff? I seem to remember that Van Wessem et al. (2023) compared their predicted ponding potential to satellite observations of melt ponds.
Figure 1 shows results for the integrated grounded ice/ice shelves only. How do the spatial patterns look?
Minor commentsl. 12: "Based on a runoff criteria.." Please note that 'criteria' is plural, so either use "Based on runoff criteria.." or "Based on a runoff criterion.."
l. 12: "we identify the emergence of surface conditions prone to hydrofracturing" Suggest: "we identify the timing of surface conditions that make ice shelves prone to hydrofracturing" or something similar.
l. 13: " A majority of ice shelves could remain safe" Suggest to reformulate: "Our results suggest that the majority..."
l.16: precipitation -> snowfall
l. 18: However, if air temperatures exceed -> However, model simulations suggest that, if atmospheric warming exceeds
l. 22: can be conducive of -> can be conducive to
l. 31: sea level -> sea level change
l. 36: in particular with regard to firn saturation by meltwater and subsequent runoff -> in particular with regard to firn saturation by meltwater and subsequent ponding
l. 87: Eq. 1: At what level is the warming specified? For this expression to be accurate, the warming should be weighted over the atmospheric column in which the water vapour resides. This is different for Eq. 2 (l. 92), where near-surface warming can be used.
l. 103: surface -> near-surface (I assume)
l. 108: " The m parameter is introduced to avoid unrealistically high melt rates" Can you provide a value, and how is it determined? Ah, it is provided in l. 120, but is given in kg m-1 s-1. Can you provide a more intuitive value, i.e. what this means per year?
l. 109-112: This is unclear, please clarify.
l. 180: typo "ooverestimated"
l.231: " Our projections over the grounded ice until 2100 agree quite well with previous estimates of sea level contribution reported by the IPCC for the three scenarios". Can these numbers be compared, i.e. did these IPCC assessments also report estimates based on SMB-only?
Section 3.2: It would be informative to provide the modelled atmospheric warming of the various models in addition to the SMB and runoff. Main motivation is that some models project negative SMB over the grounded ice sheet in the 22nd century, which must require a very strong warming, as well as significant rainfall. For these extremes, how well does the initial assumption hold that rainfall remains small?
l. 293: lead -> led
l. 294: Georges -> George
l. 323: "...while it can take more than a decade to saturate it if melt rates are just above the threshold..." Theoretically, it can take an almost infinite amount of time if the threshold is just passed.
l. 363: criteria -> criterion
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-58-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Nicolas Jourdain, 20 Jun 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 627 | 273 | 39 | 939 | 34 | 35 |
- HTML: 627
- PDF: 273
- XML: 39
- Total: 939
- BibTeX: 34
- EndNote: 35
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Cited
1 citations as recorded by crossref.
Nicolas C. Jourdain
Charles Amory
Christoph Kittel
Gaël Durand
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(19261 KB) - Metadata XML