Increasing glacier runoff in northwestern Greenland simulated from 1950 to 2023

Kondo, Ken; Fujita, Koji

doi:10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893

Preprints

10 Jun 2025

| 10 Jun 2025

Increasing glacier runoff in northwestern Greenland simulated from 1950 to 2023

Ken Kondo and Koji Fujita

Abstract. Increased river runoff due to ice melting in Greenland contributes to sea-level rise, as well as flooding in coastal settlements, posing serious risks to local communities. To investigate fluctuations of glacier runoff in Greenland and its atmospheric drivers, long-term variations in runoff from Qaanaaq Glacier, northwestern Greenland, were reconstructed from 1950 to 2023 using a glacier energy–mass balance model and climate reanalysis dataset. Exceptionally large daily runoff (top 0.1 %) has only happened since 1990, indicative of an increasing frequency of major runoff events in recent decades. The largest (8.7 m³ s⁻¹ in 2023) and second largest (7.2 m³ s⁻¹ in 2001) runoffs resulted in the destruction of roads in the settlement of Qaanaaq, demonstrating the significant effects on the local community. Such large runoffs have been attributed to intense rainfall due to enhanced moisture and heat transport caused by an atmospheric river. Long-term annual glacier runoff is controlled mainly by synoptic-scale atmospheric conditions represented by the Greenland Blocking Index (r = 0.69). Composite analysis of the climate reanalysis dataset suggests particularly high sensitivity of air temperature in northern Greenland to anticyclonic conditions over Greenland, which lead to strengthened warm southerly winds. Accurate representation of such extreme conditions in climate models is crucial for predicting glacier runoff and flood occurrence in Greenland.

Received: 22 Apr 2025 – Discussion started: 10 Jun 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, 8158 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 (8158 KB)

Supplement (3784 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

08 Apr 2026

Increasing glacier runoff in northwestern Greenland simulated from 1950 to 2023

Ken Kondo and Koji Fujita

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 1849–1864, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-1849-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-1849-2026, 2026

Short summary

Ken Kondo and Koji Fujita

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1893', Jason Box, 29 Jul 2025

Summary

The submitted article is very well written, is comprehensive in its treatment and has clear graphics. The synoptic compositing is effective in advancing process understanding. What would help advance process understanding would be the study present what role variable meltwater retention played in the extreme days and seasons, provided that the retention model has a realistic response to melt intensity and snowfall from the previous year, the latter factor (snowpack) to represent snow retention capacity.
**high level critique** in no particular order of importance...
Consider to analyze the rainfall for the 2015 and 2016 events from CARRA data?
ERA5-Land reanalysis dataset, what about coarse resolution, how its downscaled is important and how representative of local gradients is a big question
147, temperature lapse rate obtained from the daily ERA5 pressure level data, how do the numbers compare with Fausto et al 2009 'A new present-day temperature parameterization for Greenland'?
263 "78% of the runoff on both days" very interesting, perhaps unique finding, if I understand that rainfall was the majority of runoff. If so, try to highlight the result in abstract and conclusions
314 "rainfall exhibited a 2.2-fold increase from 1951–1960 to 2010–2020" try to highlight the result in abstract and conclusions
fig 6 suggest instead of °C/decade, try "change" or "trend" as the trend slope from regression multiplied by the number of years. Then possibly in abstract and conclusions can state temperature increased by _°C over the period...same with precipitation parameter trends
329 "top three daily runoff events being caused primarily by rainfall", discuss retention on those dates, how depleted? saturated snow?
334 "unclear relationship", what about retention findings from model?
**low level comments**
"io" means "instead of"
abstract
Main Text
"local glaciers" io "peripheral glaciers", peripheral is a recent language mistake we can fix by using a more accurate term
"relatively small area of Greenland (4%)," depends on level of connectivity, see doi:10.5194/tc-6-1483-2012 and use a range of % and cite the article
37 "from local glaciers" io "from glaciers"
40-50 is also possible to find reports of infrastructure bridge damage near Nuuk, for example in Kobbefjord after rainfall in 2022 https://x.com/NuukNERO/status/1573959848991014913
66 cite also Ahlstrøm 2017 Sci Reports
83 add day/month the aws installed
90 perhaps add Williamson PNAS or other supporting work outside of Japanese publications
188 "agreement" io "good agreement"
190 what is RMSE after bias correction, would be smaller than 0.07?
197 "runoff was measured in the summer periods during 2017–2019 at 1.4–2.0 km from the glacier terminus (Mankoff et al., 2020;" how is the Mankoff data used? I think that is not a measurement but a model?
214 "slightly" add % difference
218 "good agreement" add % difference
265 see also Fausto GRL and Frontiers from 2016 for possible citation in addition to (Nghiem et al., 2012).
Fig 5 red stars do not seem needed as the maximum is illustrated already
Fig 5 runoff "fraction" seems better than depth
301 "glacier mass budget surplus" io "positive glacier mass balance"
303 "climatic mass balance" is more conventional than "glacier mass balance", see Glossary of Glaciology, IAHS Cogley
355 "rain event at Summit station on the Greenland ice sheet in the summer of 2021" was more like "light rain" or "mist" which ocurred after snowfall, see Summit Figure S5a in Box study Supplement and relevant discussion
450 good point "atmospheric circulation patterns are not captured by the Earth system models used in CMIP5 and CMIP6"

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ken Kondo, 06 Sep 2025
  
  Thank you very much for carefully reading the manuscript. Please see our response to your concerns in the attachment file. We will submit a revised manuscript upon request from the editor.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1893', Arno Hammann, 17 Aug 2025

The article is very well written and understandable. Its scientific conclusions are sound and the work is well motivated by the lack of discharge data going back into the past. Some more details in the methodology could help the understanding of the reader (details below). The discussion from the point of view of synoptic and climatic controls is enlightening, but some of the suggested causal linkages are more implied than clearly demonstrated (details below).
Scientific comments:
450 - The authors claim that the pressure patters in fig. 9 ‘trigger’ the high runoff events, which may well be true, but as far as the work that is shown goes, the linkage is only demonstrated in one direction, namely that the pressure pattern is present when a runoff event occurs. It is not demonstrated that every time the pressure pattern occurs, a runoff event follows. It’s not imperative in the context of the study to do that, but the choice of the word ‘trigger’ is maybe overstating the depth of the analysis somewhat.
With respect to the association between GBI and higher surface temperatures, the manuscript talks exclusively about the role of warm air advection, mostly in connection with cited previous work. I wonder whether decreased cloudiness and higher shortwave radiation also may play a role occasionally, or what the relative importance of the two mechanisms is (e.g. 445, 475).
Since the composites in fig. 7 contain only very few events, it would be quite nice if the text commented very briefly also on how representative they are for the individual events. In particular, the claim about the atmospheric rivers driving the runoff events, is it true for every single one of the 3 events?
Technical comments:
A list of variables measured by the AWS would be nice.
In the methodology, I would appreciated a bit more clarity on whether the non-glaciated part of the catchment is included in the modelling, in particular since rainfall is found to be important in the high-runoff scenarios. If the area is too small to make an appreciable difference, this can just be stated.
A little more detail on the tuning of the rainfall estimates from ERA to the glacier surface elevation changes could also help the understanding - e.g. is the whole year taken into consideration (suggested by fig. S4a)? Then how is the snow density calculated / taken into account?
In the model description (3.1), I would find it clearer to say ‘daily averages’ instead of just ‘daily values’ (if indeed it is daily averages that are being used). A short comment on whether the strong nonlinearity in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is problematic or not at that level of temporal discretisation might be helpful.
The sequence of equations 7-9: Why not directly just use T_z? Also, does the calibration of ERA5 temperature happen after the lapse rate adjustment to the elevation of SIGMA-B?
110 - “The conductive heat flux, 𝐺, (W m−2) was calculated from the temperature profile of the subsurface snow/ice#: evokes the impression that the subsurface temperature profile is an input (and where would that information come from?), when in reality it is just part of the model.
55, 300, 420 - When discussing the role of snowfall, it becomes clear only later in the text that in the context of its importance for ablation it is its effect on albedo in the summer that is referred to (the reader may first think of winter accumulation). This could be made a bit clearer (e.g. in 300).
445 - “increase in annual runoff since 2000 coincided with the years with the top-ranked summer GBI”: is a little unclear, if I interpret fig 9 correctly, the time after 2000 is both when the top-ranked GBI years occur and when the years with highest runoff occur, but it is not necessarily a year-by-year coincidence, i.e. not every year with top-ranked GBI has top-ranked runoff.
Fig 9: The nature of the fields displayed is not completely clear to me. The anomalies are with respect to averages over what time spans? And the ‘regression anomalies’ - I presume this is the regression coefficient of Z500 with respect to GBI?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ken Kondo, 06 Sep 2025
  
  Thank you very much for carefully reading the manuscript. Please see our response to your concerns in the attachment file. We will submit a revised manuscript upon request from the editor.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1893', Jason Box, 29 Jul 2025

Summary

The submitted article is very well written, is comprehensive in its treatment and has clear graphics. The synoptic compositing is effective in advancing process understanding. What would help advance process understanding would be the study present what role variable meltwater retention played in the extreme days and seasons, provided that the retention model has a realistic response to melt intensity and snowfall from the previous year, the latter factor (snowpack) to represent snow retention capacity.
**high level critique** in no particular order of importance...
Consider to analyze the rainfall for the 2015 and 2016 events from CARRA data?
ERA5-Land reanalysis dataset, what about coarse resolution, how its downscaled is important and how representative of local gradients is a big question
147, temperature lapse rate obtained from the daily ERA5 pressure level data, how do the numbers compare with Fausto et al 2009 'A new present-day temperature parameterization for Greenland'?
263 "78% of the runoff on both days" very interesting, perhaps unique finding, if I understand that rainfall was the majority of runoff. If so, try to highlight the result in abstract and conclusions
314 "rainfall exhibited a 2.2-fold increase from 1951–1960 to 2010–2020" try to highlight the result in abstract and conclusions
fig 6 suggest instead of °C/decade, try "change" or "trend" as the trend slope from regression multiplied by the number of years. Then possibly in abstract and conclusions can state temperature increased by _°C over the period...same with precipitation parameter trends
329 "top three daily runoff events being caused primarily by rainfall", discuss retention on those dates, how depleted? saturated snow?
334 "unclear relationship", what about retention findings from model?
**low level comments**
"io" means "instead of"
abstract
Main Text
"local glaciers" io "peripheral glaciers", peripheral is a recent language mistake we can fix by using a more accurate term
"relatively small area of Greenland (4%)," depends on level of connectivity, see doi:10.5194/tc-6-1483-2012 and use a range of % and cite the article
37 "from local glaciers" io "from glaciers"
40-50 is also possible to find reports of infrastructure bridge damage near Nuuk, for example in Kobbefjord after rainfall in 2022 https://x.com/NuukNERO/status/1573959848991014913
66 cite also Ahlstrøm 2017 Sci Reports
83 add day/month the aws installed
90 perhaps add Williamson PNAS or other supporting work outside of Japanese publications
188 "agreement" io "good agreement"
190 what is RMSE after bias correction, would be smaller than 0.07?
197 "runoff was measured in the summer periods during 2017–2019 at 1.4–2.0 km from the glacier terminus (Mankoff et al., 2020;" how is the Mankoff data used? I think that is not a measurement but a model?
214 "slightly" add % difference
218 "good agreement" add % difference
265 see also Fausto GRL and Frontiers from 2016 for possible citation in addition to (Nghiem et al., 2012).
Fig 5 red stars do not seem needed as the maximum is illustrated already
Fig 5 runoff "fraction" seems better than depth
301 "glacier mass budget surplus" io "positive glacier mass balance"
303 "climatic mass balance" is more conventional than "glacier mass balance", see Glossary of Glaciology, IAHS Cogley
355 "rain event at Summit station on the Greenland ice sheet in the summer of 2021" was more like "light rain" or "mist" which ocurred after snowfall, see Summit Figure S5a in Box study Supplement and relevant discussion
450 good point "atmospheric circulation patterns are not captured by the Earth system models used in CMIP5 and CMIP6"

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Ken Kondo, 06 Sep 2025
  
  Thank you very much for carefully reading the manuscript. Please see our response to your concerns in the attachment file. We will submit a revised manuscript upon request from the editor.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2025-1893', Arno Hammann, 17 Aug 2025

The article is very well written and understandable. Its scientific conclusions are sound and the work is well motivated by the lack of discharge data going back into the past. Some more details in the methodology could help the understanding of the reader (details below). The discussion from the point of view of synoptic and climatic controls is enlightening, but some of the suggested causal linkages are more implied than clearly demonstrated (details below).
Scientific comments:
450 - The authors claim that the pressure patters in fig. 9 ‘trigger’ the high runoff events, which may well be true, but as far as the work that is shown goes, the linkage is only demonstrated in one direction, namely that the pressure pattern is present when a runoff event occurs. It is not demonstrated that every time the pressure pattern occurs, a runoff event follows. It’s not imperative in the context of the study to do that, but the choice of the word ‘trigger’ is maybe overstating the depth of the analysis somewhat.
With respect to the association between GBI and higher surface temperatures, the manuscript talks exclusively about the role of warm air advection, mostly in connection with cited previous work. I wonder whether decreased cloudiness and higher shortwave radiation also may play a role occasionally, or what the relative importance of the two mechanisms is (e.g. 445, 475).
Since the composites in fig. 7 contain only very few events, it would be quite nice if the text commented very briefly also on how representative they are for the individual events. In particular, the claim about the atmospheric rivers driving the runoff events, is it true for every single one of the 3 events?
Technical comments:
A list of variables measured by the AWS would be nice.
In the methodology, I would appreciated a bit more clarity on whether the non-glaciated part of the catchment is included in the modelling, in particular since rainfall is found to be important in the high-runoff scenarios. If the area is too small to make an appreciable difference, this can just be stated.
A little more detail on the tuning of the rainfall estimates from ERA to the glacier surface elevation changes could also help the understanding - e.g. is the whole year taken into consideration (suggested by fig. S4a)? Then how is the snow density calculated / taken into account?
In the model description (3.1), I would find it clearer to say ‘daily averages’ instead of just ‘daily values’ (if indeed it is daily averages that are being used). A short comment on whether the strong nonlinearity in the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is problematic or not at that level of temporal discretisation might be helpful.
The sequence of equations 7-9: Why not directly just use T_z? Also, does the calibration of ERA5 temperature happen after the lapse rate adjustment to the elevation of SIGMA-B?
110 - “The conductive heat flux, 𝐺, (W m−2) was calculated from the temperature profile of the subsurface snow/ice#: evokes the impression that the subsurface temperature profile is an input (and where would that information come from?), when in reality it is just part of the model.
55, 300, 420 - When discussing the role of snowfall, it becomes clear only later in the text that in the context of its importance for ablation it is its effect on albedo in the summer that is referred to (the reader may first think of winter accumulation). This could be made a bit clearer (e.g. in 300).
445 - “increase in annual runoff since 2000 coincided with the years with the top-ranked summer GBI”: is a little unclear, if I interpret fig 9 correctly, the time after 2000 is both when the top-ranked GBI years occur and when the years with highest runoff occur, but it is not necessarily a year-by-year coincidence, i.e. not every year with top-ranked GBI has top-ranked runoff.
Fig 9: The nature of the fields displayed is not completely clear to me. The anomalies are with respect to averages over what time spans? And the ‘regression anomalies’ - I presume this is the regression coefficient of Z500 with respect to GBI?

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Ken Kondo, 06 Sep 2025
  
  Thank you very much for carefully reading the manuscript. Please see our response to your concerns in the attachment file. We will submit a revised manuscript upon request from the editor.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893-AC2

Peer review completion

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

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (15 Sep 2025) by Carlo De Michele

AR by Ken Kondo on behalf of the Authors (08 Oct 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (04 Nov 2025) by Carlo De Michele

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (12 Jan 2026)

RR by Charalampos Charalampidis (28 Feb 2026)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I am pleased to recommend publication of this study by Ken Kondo and Koji Fujita in the journal of HESS after only technical corrections. Overall, the revised manuscript is well-structured, well-written, and constitutes a significant contribution to the literature on the wider region around Qaanaaq Glacier in Northwest Greenland. The authors have put significant effort to address the comments in the previous round of review. Consequently, the quality of the manuscript and wealth of information have been increased. Nevertheless, I recommend that the revised manuscript undergoes light proofreading and in certain instances light reformulating to improve the flow and be as precise and grammatically correct as possible. Few examples are as follows:
L43: “Subsequent… (Kondo et al., 2021)” is redundant and does not add information to the subsequent information.
L52: “proposed to be” is redundant.
L54: “in association with” is better as “owing to.”
L60: “This condition causes warm air advection to western Greenland…” is a preferred formulation.
L61: “Since the NAO is an indicator of…” is a more accurate formulation.
L64: “Thus, the GBI is negatively correlated with the NAO.”
L64–66: A parallel phrasing structure needs to be ensured here for clarity: “The correlation of the GBI with summer warmth in Greenland is stronger than that of the NAO.”
L106: “a glacier energy–mass balance model, namely GLIMB…” has been used elsewhere, so it should be used here too for consistency.
L115: “The conductive heat flux (G; W m-2)…” should be used also here for consistency.
L134: “, respectively” is missing here at the end of the sentence.
L160: Do you mean (mean ± standard deviation) here?
L161: “in” -> “with”
L179: “that were optimized using a Monte Carlo simulation…”
L184: “, and” -> “as well as”
L279: “, with 91 and 88% of days exceeding the 99th and 99.9th percentiles, respectively.”
L282: “, which” -> “and”
L284: “The second largest runoff was calculated for 2 August 2001 (7.2 m3 s-1) and was >2σ above the mean annual maximum.”
L290: “approximately half” sounds more appropriate, considering the 52% mentioned in the parentheses.
L293: “The” is redundant
L312: “…predominantly determined by snow/ice melt, with the contribution from rainfall being consistently low…”
L313: “The interannual variability…” is appropriate.
L513: "contributions of 79 and 78%, respectively"
L518: Please, notice the typo at "decade."
Please, ensure consistent use of Oxford comma throughout the text.
After equations, where you introduce the variables, please introduce either semicolons or periods to avoid comma splices.
Please, make use of plus signs where appropriate (e.g., positive r, temperature, or mass balance values).
All the best.

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (03 Mar 2026) by Carlo De Michele

Dear Authors,

The revised manuscript has received two review reports.
Based on these, it is considered acceptable pending minor technical corrections, as highlighted by Reviewer #3 and reported below for completeness.

From Reviewer #3--
Nevertheless, I recommend that the revised manuscript undergoes light proofreading and in certain instances light reformulating to improve the flow and be as precise and grammatically correct as possible. Few examples are as follows:
L43: “Subsequent… (Kondo et al., 2021)” is redundant and does not add information to the subsequent information.
L52: “proposed to be” is redundant.
L54: “in association with” is better as “owing to.”
L60: “This condition causes warm air advection to western Greenland…” is a preferred formulation.
L61: “Since the NAO is an indicator of…” is a more accurate formulation.
L64: “Thus, the GBI is negatively correlated with the NAO.”
L64–66: A parallel phrasing structure needs to be ensured here for clarity: “The correlation of the GBI with summer warmth in Greenland is stronger than that of the NAO.”
L106: “a glacier energy–mass balance model, namely GLIMB…” has been used elsewhere, so it should be used here too for consistency.
L115: “The conductive heat flux (G; W m-2)…” should be used also here for consistency.
L134: “, respectively” is missing here at the end of the sentence.
L160: Do you mean (mean ± standard deviation) here?
L161: “in” -> “with”
L179: “that were optimized using a Monte Carlo simulation…”
L184: “, and” -> “as well as”
L279: “, with 91 and 88% of days exceeding the 99th and 99.9th percentiles, respectively.”
L282: “, which” -> “and”
L284: “The second largest runoff was calculated for 2 August 2001 (7.2 m3 s-1) and was >2σ above the mean annual maximum.”
L290: “approximately half” sounds more appropriate, considering the 52% mentioned in the parentheses.
L293: “The” is redundant
L312: “…predominantly determined by snow/ice melt, with the contribution from rainfall being consistently low…”
L313: “The interannual variability…” is appropriate.
L513: "contributions of 79 and 78%, respectively"
L518: Please, notice the typo at "decade."
Please, ensure consistent use of Oxford comma throughout the text.
After equations, where you introduce the variables, please introduce either semicolons or periods to avoid comma splices.
Please, make use of plus signs where appropriate (e.g., positive r, temperature, or mass balance values).
---

Congratulations with this important achievement!
with best regards,

Carlo De Michele
HESS Editor

Hide

AR by Ken Kondo on behalf of the Authors (04 Mar 2026) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

08 Apr 2026

Increasing glacier runoff in northwestern Greenland simulated from 1950 to 2023

Ken Kondo and Koji Fujita

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 30, 1849–1864, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-1849-2026,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-1849-2026, 2026

Short summary

Ken Kondo and Koji Fujita

Supplement

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1893-supplement

Ken Kondo and Koji Fujita

Viewed

Total article views: 1,532 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	Supplement	BibTeX	EndNote
1,026	463	43	1,532	98	25	42

HTML: 1,026
PDF: 463
XML: 43
Total: 1,532
Supplement: 98
BibTeX: 25
EndNote: 42

Views and downloads (calculated since 10 Jun 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2025	149	42	6	197
Jul 2025	72	13	6	91
Aug 2025	117	13	5	135
Sep 2025	401	11	4	416
Oct 2025	49	16	3	68
Nov 2025	36	26	3	65
Dec 2025	31	38	8	77
Jan 2026	71	77	1	149
Feb 2026	56	44	4	104
Mar 2026	36	150	3	189
Apr 2026	8	33	0	41

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 10 Jun 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Jun 2025	149	42	6	197
Jul 2025	72	13	6	91
Aug 2025	117	13	5	135
Sep 2025	401	11	4	416
Oct 2025	49	16	3	68
Nov 2025	36	26	3	65
Dec 2025	31	38	8	77
Jan 2026	71	77	1	149
Feb 2026	56	44	4	104
Mar 2026	36	150	3	189
Apr 2026	8	33	0	41

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 1,510 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 1,510 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 08 Apr 2026

Download

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

Preprint (8158 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Increased river runoff due to ice melt in Greenland contributes to sea-level rise and flooding in coastal settlements. We reconstructed glacier runoff in northwestern Greenland from 1950 to 2023. The long-term modelling revealed recent increase in the glacier runoff owing to circulation changes over Greenland, characterized by moisture and heat transport to the north. Our study illustrated a significant impact of atmospheric variability on Greenlandic glaciers and local communities.


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