the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Permafrost sensitivity to soil hydro-thermodynamics in historical and scenario simulations with the MPI-ESM
Abstract. Global warming is particularly intense in the Arctic, where temperature trends are up to four times higher than those observed globally. Among its multiple consequences, this enhanced warming is especially concerning because it triggers the degradation of permafrost. However, the increasing temperature is not the only factor conditioning permafrost thaw. Changes in water availability induced by disturbances in the permafrost water table considerably affect Arctic soils moisture and ice presence and thermal structure in permafrost regions. Our understanding of the interactions between hydrology and thermodynamics is still limited as well as its representation in the majority of state-of-the-art land surface models (LSMs), mainly in terms of the processes included, LSM depth, spatial resolution, vertical discretization, and hydro-thermodynamic coupling.
This work explores the response of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM) to changes in the soil hydrology and thermodynamics in permafrost-affected regions. An ensemble of fully-coupled historical and climate change scenario simulations was performed under three configurations: the standard model that will be taken as a reference, and two variants that generate rather dry or wet conditions across permafrost areas. Enhanced soil depth and vertical resolution within the LSM, JSBACH, were also incorporated globally to capture fine-scale thermodynamics and allow for deeper heat propagation. Results show that deepening the LSM reduces the intensity of near-surface soil warming by 0.1 °C dec-1 in high radiative forcing scenarios, reducing permafrost retreat by up to 1.9–3.1 106 km2 by the end of the 21st century. However, the greatest influences are produced by the dry and wet configurations, which lead to distinct initial states, historical, and future evolution for permafrost temperatures (offset of 3 °C), active layer thickness (1–2 m) and permafrost extent (5 106 km2). This work underscores the importance of refining hydrological and thermodynamic processes in ESMs to improve projections of permafrost responses under climate change scenarios, with implications for the assessment of risks related to carbon feedbacks and infrastructure vulnerabilities in Arctic regions.
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 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.- Preprint
(7611 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2126', Stefan Hagemann, 28 Jul 2025
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Félix García-Pereira, 03 Oct 2025
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2126', Anonymous Referee #2, 01 Aug 2025
The authors used a fully coupled MPI-ESM to study soil hydro-thermodynamics in permafrost regions. They examined the effects of soil hydro-thermal and depth on soil thermodynamics and permafrost distribution by comparing the default model setup (REF) and two extreme hydrological setups (WET and DRY), as well as the soil discretization setup (5 and 11 layers with approximately 10 m and 18 layers with 1391 m). The results suggest that the wide range of permafrost extent in CMIP6 is associated with soil depth and hydrological conditions. This well-designed paper falls within the scope of The Cryosphere and may be of interest to readers in the permafrost and modeling communities.
The manuscript is rather lengthy and could be written more concisely. There are also 12 figures that could be eliminated. Additionally, some sections, especially the introduction and methods, could be rearranged for clarity. For example, the simulation setups are introduced in the introduction, beginning at L85. This information could be moved to the methods section. The methods section also contains several model abbreviations, such as MPI-ESM1.2, JSBACH3.2, JSBACH-HTCp, and MPIESM-PePE. This section should be simplified to avoid confusion. If the study used MPIESM-PePE with the JSBACH-HTCp land component, then MPI-ESM1.2 and JSBACH3.2 could be introduced first, and followed by an explanation of the improved features of JSBACH-HTCp and MPIESM-PePE together with the experimental setup. Alternatively, a table could be added with the names and brief descriptions of the versions used for the simulations. Furthermore, the results and discussion sections sometimes contain a lot of values that could be summarized in a table, for example, the section 3.2.
L150: "Standard physics" sounds vague.
L258, L300: If the snow schemes differ between the WET/DRY (JSBACH-HTCp) and REF (JSBACH3.2) simulations, this should be mentioned in the methods section. Currently, it is unclear what differs between the WET/DRY and REF simulations. It should clearly describe how they differ, not only in the hydrological scheme (extreme wet and dry), but also in other schemes, such as the presence of an organic layer and water phase changes.
L281: Increased soil depths (5 and 11 layers versus 18 layers) reduce the warming trend. However, REF18 appears warmer than REF5 and REF11, which may be due to their greater responsiveness to a cooler scenario (SSP1) compared to REF18. It would be better to describe that the deeper layers (18 layers) are less responsive to temperature change.
L290: For the SSP5-8.5 scenario? Figures 4d and 4f show only temporal changes.
L347 (Fig. 7): What does "18L value is out of bounds" mean? Are there no data beyond this range? For the 18L simulations, can the maximum ALT be 9.98 m even though the soil layers exist deeper than that?
L396: What could cause these spatial variations?
L404 (Fig. 10): The REF and WET simulations show a similar range, while the DRY simulations show slightly less permafrost extent, closer to the ESApCCIv3 value. Does this mean that the DRY simulations better represent the real world? If the REF and WET simulations overestimate the extent of permafrost, does that imply that current models (e.g., the REF simulation setup) are wetter than the real world?
L455: Again, what could be causing these spatial variations?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2126-RC2 - AC3: 'Reply on RC2', Félix García-Pereira, 03 Oct 2025
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-2126', Anonymous Referee #3, 12 Aug 2025
Dear authors, please find my comments in the attachment.
- AC2: 'Reply on RC3', Félix García-Pereira, 03 Oct 2025
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
722 | 68 | 23 | 813 | 10 | 23 |
- HTML: 722
- PDF: 68
- XML: 23
- Total: 813
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
see attached PDF