Limited global effect of climate-Greenland ice sheet coupling in NorESM2 under a high-emission scenario

Haubner, Konstanze; Goelzer, Heiko; Born, Andreas

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785

Preprints

23 Jan 2025

| 23 Jan 2025

Limited global effect of climate-Greenland ice sheet coupling in NorESM2 under a high-emission scenario

Konstanze Haubner, Heiko Goelzer, and Andreas Born

Abstract. The Greenland ice sheet is melting at an accelerating rate due to the warming climate. In order to understand the potentially important ice-climate feedback processes, evolving ice sheets need to be included in global climate models. Here, we present results from the first bi-directional coupling of the Earth System model NorESM2 with the ice sheet model CISM2 for the Greenland ice sheet under an extended high emission SSP5-8.5 forcing from 1850 to 2300. Comparing simulation results to an otherwise identical simulation with a fixed Greenland ice sheet, we see the same global trends in air, ocean and sea ice changes. The main signals are a 10 °C global air temperature increase from 2000 to 2300, a reduced maximum AMOC at 26.5° N from average 23 to 9 Sv and an all-year free Arctic by 2200. Similar to other coupled CMIP models, the warming trend dominates the changes of the climate components and the relatively minor changes of the Greenland ice sheet do not enhance or shift the simulated patterns. At the regional scale, elevation changes become an important part of the Greenland surface mass balance after 2100. By the end of the simulation, the ablation area covers 93 % of the ice area and the cumulative ice mass loss since 1850 is equivalent to 1.4 m of sea-level rise. With a low climate sensitivity and relatively low weak amplification in NorESM2, these results are on the lower end of the spectrum of expected ice mass loss under CMIP6 model forcing.

Received: 02 Dec 2024 – Discussion started: 23 Jan 2025

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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 3709 KB)

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 (3709 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

13 Jan 2026

Limited global effect of climate-Greenland ice sheet coupling in NorESM2 under a high-emission scenario

Konstanze Haubner, Heiko Goelzer, and Andreas Born

Earth Syst. Dynam., 17, 57–80, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-57-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-57-2026, 2026

Short summary

Konstanze Haubner, Heiko Goelzer, and Andreas Born

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3785', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Feb 2025

Please find the review of Haubner et al. (2025) in the attached document.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Konstanze Haubner, 15 Apr 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-3785/egusphere-2024-3785-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3785', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Mar 2025

In this paper, the authors analyze the first NorESM simulation including an interactive Greenland ice sheet model. The authors indicate a minor impact of interactive model on the global climate dynamics simulation. They do find differences in Arctic climate by 2100 and a large impact of the elevation-melt feedback on the overall ice sheet mass loss

General comments
The results are very interesting since there are very few examples of this type of coupled ice sheet-climate simulations. However, the analysis of results is difficult to follow as there are too many loose numbers in the text – these could be presented in tables instead – and with inconsistent metrics – sometimes ranges or extremes are presented, sometimes mean values with standard deviations -. The paper would benefit of some assessment of statistical significance of the differences between simulations (e.g, Figure 2), as well of (attempt of) explanations of these differences. In the conclusions, the authors highlight how their results differ as those from previous work from EMICs. It would be interesting that the authors provide more detail on that.
The design of the simulations needs some more clarity, taking some parts of the model description (submitted) here where they are relevant to explain the results. For instance, Figure 2 does not provide information about initial NorESM2-NorESM2fixed (temperature, surface elevation) differences (for a pre-industrial or 1850 climate). Also, the treatment of meltwater fluxes in the “fixed” simulation is not clear; perhaps these fluxes could be compared in the manuscript.

Title and main conclusion
The title can be misleading, as it refers to “Limited global effect of climate-Greenland ice sheet coupling (…)”. The conclusions rather refer to the limited effects of Greenland ice sheet change on the global climate. In the title the word climate is first, and the coupling could be uni-directional (“one-way”). Therefore, the title can read as if climate change does not affect Greenland or global sea levels when both climate and ice sheet are modelled together within NorESM … In general, I would highlight more the added value of the coupling in title and conclusions, e.g., along the lines of mapping climate and (land, sea) ice change with a single model that permits to establish direct connections within the Earth System.

Abstract
Lines 1-2: it seems from the title that the results do not justify the coupling? I would disagree, as this paper presents a consistent, comprehensive yet fully detailed account of (Artic, global) climate and Greenland ice sheet co-evolution within the same model. Perhaps worth to highlight more the relationships between the timing of NAMOC decline, sea-ice decline, and melt acceleration?
Line 9: “an important part” -> quantify; e.g., how much is the mass loss enhanced by 2100, how much by 2300
Line 11: “1.4 m sea-level rise” -> consider to give this earlier, before line 8 “relatively minor changes”
Line 11: “low weak amplification” -> remove one adjective, amplification of what?

Plain Language Summary
It is not very clear what is happening already and what is expected to happen.
Line 20: “is”

Intro
Line 48: not all citations are CMIP6 models, please check

Figures
Please add statistical significance. I suggest increasing the size, e.g., until at least page width. For Figure 2, it would be interesting to zoom in on the Greenland area/high latitude differences, and to relate with elevation differences.

Results
Please introduce the structure of this long section. Also, consider adding numbered sub-sections. The differences in Arctic climate in the *fixed versus coupled simulations are a very interesting result, it would be great if the authors could go into more depth there.

Table 1 – please add standard deviations. Can you indicate which of the coupled versus fixed differences are statistically significant?

Line 132: “PI” is a bit misleading, perhaps “1870s”/”1870” for consistency ?
Line 134: usually 2000s would refer to the decade 2000-2009
Global average changes:
Consider adding rates of contribution to sea level rise (mm/yr) as this is an important metric of mass loss (see e.g., AR6).
Line 135: “Global average changes” -> “Time evolution of climate and ice sheet change”
Structure of this part is not straightforward, e.g., global temperature and ice sheet SMB are together in the same paragraph
Line 139: “has a strong impact”-> but temperature change is not per se the cause of SMB change – more melt energy and changes in snowfall are … -
Line 141 – “fluctuating around 600 Gt yr-1” -> give mean and standard deviation, e.g., in table
Line 142 – “SMB with climate forcing” -> ?
Line 142 “2000” this time of emergence is an interesting result, perhaps highlight more?
Line 146 is ice discharge increasing? Please explain
Line 146 “200 years” -> shouldn’t it be more?
Line 146 Figure 1d seems to show a trend for the pre-industrial simulation? Can you quantify this and comment on it?
Line 147: “show a similar pattern” -> do you mean a spatial pattern? Or similar time evolution?
Line 148 I don’t see a graph or table in support of the global SST analysis
Line 148: “discernible” -> what is the criteria you used?
Line 149 refer to Fig. 1e in this paragraph
Line 155-156: range is compared with mean plus standard deviation, please consolidate.
Line 173: here and in other places “up to” is not very representative, please use tables comparing e.g., averages and standard deviations
Lines 200-212: precipitation, is there a figure/table in support of “staying the same”? Also, numbers in the text can be replaced by a table.
Oceanic changes: figures are visually described, please add statistical significance, compare areal means, and look for some potential explanations for the results.
Greenland ice sheet changes:
There is not much analysis of surface mass balance or energy components here, is there any reason not to do this?
Please increase size and add elevation contour lines to Figure 7, to illustrate changes in equilibrium line altitude. Perhaps interesting to add a figure/table with evolution of the mean equilibrium line altitude? (can be calculated from the ablation area % and the function of cumulative area below a certain elevation, or “hypsometric curve”)
Line 246: here and in other places “visible” -> replace by scientific criteria, such as “statistically significant”, quantification of differences, explanation of mechanisms, etc.
Line 280: “up to “ , not representative of overall change -> use representative metrics, e.g., table with e.g., mean snowfall over ablation/accumulation area
Figure 7h: there seems to be a strange “corner” along the equilibrium line altitude, do you know what causes this?

Discussion
Please check (and introduce) structure, e.g., line 325 “as mentioned earlier” marks an unexpected break.
Line 310 “the lack of calving might underestimate” -> “and ocean forcing to the calving front likely”
Line 353 SAT of 5 C for which greenhouse forcing? Do you mean SSP5?
Line 355 move this before the previous paragraph?

Conclusions
Line 368 see -> analyze, assess, etc
Lines 369-371 This is an interesting result, please quantify, explain (at least tentatively)
Line 372 “major contributor” -> quantify
Line 373 “longer” with respect to?
Line 379 interesting result, please specify/quantify
Line 381 advantage -> added value

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Konstanze Haubner, 15 Apr 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-3785/egusphere-2024-3785-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3785', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Feb 2025

Please find the review of Haubner et al. (2025) in the attached document.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Konstanze Haubner, 15 Apr 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-3785/egusphere-2024-3785-AC1-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-3785', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Mar 2025

In this paper, the authors analyze the first NorESM simulation including an interactive Greenland ice sheet model. The authors indicate a minor impact of interactive model on the global climate dynamics simulation. They do find differences in Arctic climate by 2100 and a large impact of the elevation-melt feedback on the overall ice sheet mass loss

General comments
The results are very interesting since there are very few examples of this type of coupled ice sheet-climate simulations. However, the analysis of results is difficult to follow as there are too many loose numbers in the text – these could be presented in tables instead – and with inconsistent metrics – sometimes ranges or extremes are presented, sometimes mean values with standard deviations -. The paper would benefit of some assessment of statistical significance of the differences between simulations (e.g, Figure 2), as well of (attempt of) explanations of these differences. In the conclusions, the authors highlight how their results differ as those from previous work from EMICs. It would be interesting that the authors provide more detail on that.
The design of the simulations needs some more clarity, taking some parts of the model description (submitted) here where they are relevant to explain the results. For instance, Figure 2 does not provide information about initial NorESM2-NorESM2fixed (temperature, surface elevation) differences (for a pre-industrial or 1850 climate). Also, the treatment of meltwater fluxes in the “fixed” simulation is not clear; perhaps these fluxes could be compared in the manuscript.

Title and main conclusion
The title can be misleading, as it refers to “Limited global effect of climate-Greenland ice sheet coupling (…)”. The conclusions rather refer to the limited effects of Greenland ice sheet change on the global climate. In the title the word climate is first, and the coupling could be uni-directional (“one-way”). Therefore, the title can read as if climate change does not affect Greenland or global sea levels when both climate and ice sheet are modelled together within NorESM … In general, I would highlight more the added value of the coupling in title and conclusions, e.g., along the lines of mapping climate and (land, sea) ice change with a single model that permits to establish direct connections within the Earth System.

Abstract
Lines 1-2: it seems from the title that the results do not justify the coupling? I would disagree, as this paper presents a consistent, comprehensive yet fully detailed account of (Artic, global) climate and Greenland ice sheet co-evolution within the same model. Perhaps worth to highlight more the relationships between the timing of NAMOC decline, sea-ice decline, and melt acceleration?
Line 9: “an important part” -> quantify; e.g., how much is the mass loss enhanced by 2100, how much by 2300
Line 11: “1.4 m sea-level rise” -> consider to give this earlier, before line 8 “relatively minor changes”
Line 11: “low weak amplification” -> remove one adjective, amplification of what?

Plain Language Summary
It is not very clear what is happening already and what is expected to happen.
Line 20: “is”

Intro
Line 48: not all citations are CMIP6 models, please check

Figures
Please add statistical significance. I suggest increasing the size, e.g., until at least page width. For Figure 2, it would be interesting to zoom in on the Greenland area/high latitude differences, and to relate with elevation differences.

Results
Please introduce the structure of this long section. Also, consider adding numbered sub-sections. The differences in Arctic climate in the *fixed versus coupled simulations are a very interesting result, it would be great if the authors could go into more depth there.

Table 1 – please add standard deviations. Can you indicate which of the coupled versus fixed differences are statistically significant?

Line 132: “PI” is a bit misleading, perhaps “1870s”/”1870” for consistency ?
Line 134: usually 2000s would refer to the decade 2000-2009
Global average changes:
Consider adding rates of contribution to sea level rise (mm/yr) as this is an important metric of mass loss (see e.g., AR6).
Line 135: “Global average changes” -> “Time evolution of climate and ice sheet change”
Structure of this part is not straightforward, e.g., global temperature and ice sheet SMB are together in the same paragraph
Line 139: “has a strong impact”-> but temperature change is not per se the cause of SMB change – more melt energy and changes in snowfall are … -
Line 141 – “fluctuating around 600 Gt yr-1” -> give mean and standard deviation, e.g., in table
Line 142 – “SMB with climate forcing” -> ?
Line 142 “2000” this time of emergence is an interesting result, perhaps highlight more?
Line 146 is ice discharge increasing? Please explain
Line 146 “200 years” -> shouldn’t it be more?
Line 146 Figure 1d seems to show a trend for the pre-industrial simulation? Can you quantify this and comment on it?
Line 147: “show a similar pattern” -> do you mean a spatial pattern? Or similar time evolution?
Line 148 I don’t see a graph or table in support of the global SST analysis
Line 148: “discernible” -> what is the criteria you used?
Line 149 refer to Fig. 1e in this paragraph
Line 155-156: range is compared with mean plus standard deviation, please consolidate.
Line 173: here and in other places “up to” is not very representative, please use tables comparing e.g., averages and standard deviations
Lines 200-212: precipitation, is there a figure/table in support of “staying the same”? Also, numbers in the text can be replaced by a table.
Oceanic changes: figures are visually described, please add statistical significance, compare areal means, and look for some potential explanations for the results.
Greenland ice sheet changes:
There is not much analysis of surface mass balance or energy components here, is there any reason not to do this?
Please increase size and add elevation contour lines to Figure 7, to illustrate changes in equilibrium line altitude. Perhaps interesting to add a figure/table with evolution of the mean equilibrium line altitude? (can be calculated from the ablation area % and the function of cumulative area below a certain elevation, or “hypsometric curve”)
Line 246: here and in other places “visible” -> replace by scientific criteria, such as “statistically significant”, quantification of differences, explanation of mechanisms, etc.
Line 280: “up to “ , not representative of overall change -> use representative metrics, e.g., table with e.g., mean snowfall over ablation/accumulation area
Figure 7h: there seems to be a strange “corner” along the equilibrium line altitude, do you know what causes this?

Discussion
Please check (and introduce) structure, e.g., line 325 “as mentioned earlier” marks an unexpected break.
Line 310 “the lack of calving might underestimate” -> “and ocean forcing to the calving front likely”
Line 353 SAT of 5 C for which greenhouse forcing? Do you mean SSP5?
Line 355 move this before the previous paragraph?

Conclusions
Line 368 see -> analyze, assess, etc
Lines 369-371 This is an interesting result, please quantify, explain (at least tentatively)
Line 372 “major contributor” -> quantify
Line 373 “longer” with respect to?
Line 379 interesting result, please specify/quantify
Line 381 advantage -> added value

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Konstanze Haubner, 15 Apr 2025
  
  The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2025/egusphere-2024-3785/egusphere-2024-3785-AC2-supplement.pdf
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3785-AC2

Peer review completion

AR – Author's response | RR – Referee report | ED – Editor decision | EF – Editorial file upload

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (28 May 2025) by Gabriele Messori

AR by Konstanze Haubner on behalf of the Authors (09 Jul 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Jul 2025) by Gabriele Messori

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (29 Jul 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I am pleased with the revision of the manuscript. Most of my points are clarified. I have minor comments below. Line numbers are for tracked changes file:

L9: “In our simulation, the relatively cumulative ice mass loss since 1850 is equivalent to 1.4 m of sea-level rise with a cumulative ice mass loss since 1850 equivalent to 1.4 m of sea-level rise” – there went something wrong here. Also, please indicate by which year the ice loss is equal to 1.4 m. I assume 2300 but two lines above you write about 2200. So please clarify here. Also, I find the terms “relatively” and “cumulative” confusing here. Why not only: “In our simulation, the ice mass loss between 1850 and XXXX is equivalent …”?

L10: “These rates of ice loss show no enhancement or shift the simulated climate patterns”. – This sentence does also not seem right to me. Do you mean, the ice loss is not accelerating? But it looks different in your SMB figure. Also, the term “these rates” implies that you mentioned the rates of ice loss before, which you did not.

L11: “At the regional scale, elevation changes become an important part of the Greenland surface mass balance after 2100 with around 20% of ablation happening due to elevation change in 2200”. – The year 2200 seems a bit arbitrary to me. Why has this year been chosen? Also, please consider to reformulate to avoid repetition. Why not: “At the regional scale, elevation changes become an important part of the Greenland surface mass balance after 2100, accounting for around 20% of the ablation”.

L12f: “By the end of the Simulation” – Better “By the year 2300”

L113ff: “Ice areas that detach from the GrIS and ice loss due to calving are treated as solid discharge. CISM provides BLOM with annually collected solid discharge that is sent to the closest ocean cell as freshwater and distributed homogeneously throughout the year by BLOM”. – To me “treated as solid discharge” sounds like your ocean model would include an interactive iceberg scheme. As I understand, it does not, but you add the freshwater as liquid freshwater and withdraw the latent heat from the ocean. If so, could you clarify that the freshwater is added as “liquid freshwater” to the ocean.

250f: “Differences in the coupled and uncoupled simulation are visible in a more saline Davis Strait and Baffin Bay in the uncouple run by 2100 …” - Am I misunderstanding something? Looking at Figure A8 last row and middle column, I see a positive salinity anomaly in the Greenland Sea and maybe Denmark Strait, but Baffin Bay seems to be even a bit fresher in NorESM2 than in NorESM2fixed

L317f: “While in 2200, the elevation feedback contributes about 20% to the negative SMB, in 2300 SMBelev is gaining on impact and contributes almost 50% of the total SMB”.

Figures A1-3: Please fix the captions. They are identical, but I assume the figures show annual mean and seasonal data?

Figure A9: Please fix the caption, salinity at 400 m depth is not sea surface salinity.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (08 Sep 2025)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Sep 2025) by Gabriele Messori

AR by Konstanze Haubner on behalf of the Authors (24 Oct 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (10 Nov 2025) by Gabriele Messori

AR by Konstanze Haubner on behalf of the Authors (23 Nov 2025) Author's response Manuscript

Post-review adjustments

AA – Author's adjustment | EA – Editor approval

AA by Konstanze Haubner on behalf of the Authors (05 Jan 2026) Author's adjustment Manuscript

EA: Adjustments approved (11 Jan 2026) by Gabriele Messori

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

13 Jan 2026

Limited global effect of climate-Greenland ice sheet coupling in NorESM2 under a high-emission scenario

Konstanze Haubner, Heiko Goelzer, and Andreas Born

Earth Syst. Dynam., 17, 57–80, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-57-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-17-57-2026, 2026

Short summary

Konstanze Haubner, Heiko Goelzer, and Andreas Born

Viewed

Total article views: 1,105 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
902	173	30	1,105	42	67

HTML: 902
PDF: 173
XML: 30
Total: 1,105
BibTeX: 42
EndNote: 67

Views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	62	14	5	81
Feb 2025	46	7	2	55
Mar 2025	36	5	1	42
Apr 2025	29	13	3	45
May 2025	28	12	3	43
Jun 2025	39	18	3	60
Jul 2025	28	16	0	44
Aug 2025	76	10	3	89
Sep 2025	386	4	0	390
Oct 2025	34	14	1	49
Nov 2025	53	22	5	80
Dec 2025	65	30	1	96
Jan 2026	20	8	3	31

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 23 Jan 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jan 2025	62	14	5	81
Feb 2025	46	7	2	55
Mar 2025	36	5	1	42
Apr 2025	29	13	3	45
May 2025	28	12	3	43
Jun 2025	39	18	3	60
Jul 2025	28	16	0	44
Aug 2025	76	10	3	89
Sep 2025	386	4	0	390
Oct 2025	34	14	1	49
Nov 2025	53	22	5	80
Dec 2025	65	30	1	96
Jan 2026	20	8	3	31

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,088 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,088 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 13 Jan 2026

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (3709 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

We add a new dynamic component – an ice sheet model simulating the Greenland ice sheet – to an Earth system model that already captures the global climate evolution including ocean, atmosphere, land and sea ice. Under a strong warming scenario, the global warming of 10 °C over 250 yrs is dominating the climate evolution. Changes from the ice-climate interaction are mainly local yet impacting the evolution of the Greenland ice sheet. Hence, ice-climate feedbacks should be considered beyond 2100.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0