the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Estimating the Thermodynamic Contribution to Recent Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Mass Loss
Abstract. The Greenland Ice Sheet has become the largest single frozen source of global sea level rise following a pronounced increase in meltwater runoff in recent decades. The pivotal role of anomalous anticyclonic circulation patterns in facilitating this increase has been widely documented; however, this change in atmospheric circulation has coincided with a rapidly warming Arctic. While amplified warming at high latitudes has undoubtedly contributed to trends in Greenland's mass loss, the contribution of this shift in background conditions relative to changes in regional circulation patterns has yet to be quantified. Here, we apply the pseudo-global warming method of dynamical downscaling to estimate the contribution of the change in the thermodynamic background state under global warming to observed Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass loss since the turn of the century. Our analysis demonstrates that, had the recent atmospheric dynamical forcing of the Greenland Ice Sheet occurred under a preindustrial setting, anomalous surface mass loss would have been reduced by over 62 % relative to observations. We show that the change in the thermodynamic environment under amplified Arctic warming has augmented melt of the ice sheet via longwave radiative effects accompanying an increase in atmospheric water vapor content. Furthermore, the thermodynamic contribution to surface mass loss over the exceptional melt years of 2012 and 2019 was less than half that of the long-term average, demonstrating a reduced influence during periods of strong synoptic-scale atmospheric forcing.
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
(7854 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2719 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Dec 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4140', Anonymous Referee #1, 03 Nov 2025 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-4140', Jason Box, 30 Nov 2025
reply
SummaryThe submitted article is very clearly written and applies a clever pseudo-global warming (PGW) method to estimate of the relative contributions of dynamical versus thermodynamic change to recent Greenland ice sheet surface climatic mass loss.It's an interesting angle that "the change in the background thermodynamic environment, and its resulting impact on GrIS SMB, represents a more robust signal of climate change than the potential dynamical response**high level critique** in no particular order of importance...I think this is an attribution study, and so think the a-word belongs in article s titleThe article would benefit from stating and focusing some discussion on assumptions, to what extent they may or may not be violated, e.g. coupling between ocean and atmosphere is assumed to be well represented by the approach... the relatively minor SMB response to changing sea ice, line 428 has implicit assumption "is evident that sea-surface conditions alone exert minimal influence on the ice sheet" .. Further discussion lines 434 to 440 rests on the assumption the modeling accurately captures ocean/atmosphere energy exchange.A sub point, assuming the modeling accurately captures ocean/atmosphere energy exchange, where around Greenland has the greatest sea ice change response? And can that regional signal be credibly interpreted?A recurring question for me:a) 503-504 "suggests no appreciable contribution by the observed change in local sea-surface conditions to runoff production during these exceptional melt years" and/or the coupling of runoff to sea ice in the modeling is off/muted/incompleteb) 614 "Even so, this analysis reveals a minimal influence." or the coupling is incomplete/ineffective?c) 626-627 "It should also be noted that" or the coupling here is incomplete/ineffective?...alternative hypothesis, the not-explicitly-treated interplay between dynamics and thermodynamics is to blame for the counterintuitive result that is to reject the idea "that higher SST and lower SIC may promote earlier melt onset in the spring"?KEY: "io" means "instead of", NUMEBRS: line numbers87-88 the idea of warmer atmosphere, more water vapor appears as a statistically robust feature of observational data, specifically N Atlantic SST and Northern Hemisphere near-surface air temperatures correlation with Greenland snow accumulation, matching theory articulated by Treberth (doi: 10.3354/cr00953), see https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1 figure 9a, Table 3 and related discussion, e.g. "Paeth et al. (2002) link the increasing precipitation to increasing SST and atmospheric CO2."libe 603 "remotely sourced heat" is a point made by https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00373.1 and that study also examines N Atlantic SST as being less remote than the N Hemisphere526 "2019 underwent more frequent melt at lower elevations", 2019 had a low accumulation anomaly across the west, preconditioning the albedo feedback to do its thing alongside the anomalous synoptic forcingTo make the text easier to follow, the abbreviations PGW1 PGW2 should be PGW_T_q PGW_SST_SIC, stacked super sub script, e.g. LaTeXPGW_{\text{SST}}^{\text{SIC}}% or shorterPGW_\text{SST}^\text{SIC}% or evenPGW_{\mathrm{SST}}^{\mathrm{SIC}}or HTML: PGW SST<sup>SIC</sup> or ...idea around Figure 7.: The delta LWD correspond to a delta T, if assuming same emissivity for control vs the two experiments (or emissivity as a function of water vapor), is the delta in effective radiative temperature consistent with the observed delta TThe reader would appreciate capturing the main points with a smaller word count, otherwise I would have rated the article in 4) Presentation quality, as excellent because 4) Presentation quality includes "concise"** lower level critique **Main Text50 statistically "significant"? In any case, the s-word should be reserved for the result of a statistical test.55,396,515 downward io incoming (find and replace); downward is the PMOD World Radiation Center standard59-60 (Gallagher et al., 2018; Lenaerts et al., 2019; Noël et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019). read and cite also http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016GL07221262-63 cite also http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2016GL067720 and http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feart.2016.00082195 delete un-needed "quite", and in general to avoid ambiguity, avoid adjectives and adverbs252 delete un-needed "precipitous"288 "bouts", have a read and consider incorporating ideas/results from https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL110121306 supporting info in https://doi.org/10.1002/met.2134 figs 5 and 6 and related discussion312 periphery io terminusFig. 6, aren't the units Gt per day?throughout instead of [] around units, suggest ", unit"345 "greatest over the northern ice sheet." consistent with Orsi study?448 with io experiencing. The latter is for sentient beings.451 incur (or exhibit) io experience491-494 the following main insight deserves highlight in abstract and/or conclusions "This suggests that the relative importance of a changing background state under global climate change may be minimized during periods of strong synoptic-scale atmospheric forcing. In other words, the record melt observed during those two summers is more a consequence of exceptional atmospheric circulation patterns than it is a direct consequence of the long-term warming trend"500 "turbulent heat fluxes (Fausto et al., 2016a, b)." also Box et al 2022 GRL524 remove un-needed "quite"534 "anomalously high atmospheric" io "anomalous atmospheric"546 "southwestern ice sheet" io "western slope of the southern ice sheet", elsewhere PLEASE use "ice sheet" instead of "GrIS" once it's obvious the geographic focus is Greenland537 "it relatively[?] susceptible" io "it more susceptible"566,elsewhere "downward" io "downwelling" (find and replace)609 un-needed "It is important to note that"618 nu-needed "It should also be noted that" but seems a new paragraphCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2025-4140-RC2
Data sets
Modèle Atmosphérique Régional (MAR) version 3.12 regional climate model pseudo-global warming experiment output, 2000-2019, Greenland domain, 20 kilometer (km) horizontal resolution Jonathon Preece et al. https://arcticdata.io/catalog/view/doi:10.18739/A2TT4FV6W
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 158 | 64 | 20 | 242 | 29 | 19 | 15 |
- HTML: 158
- PDF: 64
- XML: 20
- Total: 242
- Supplement: 29
- BibTeX: 19
- EndNote: 15
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
General remarks
This is an excellent and novel quantitative analysis of the contribution of the local change in background thermodynamic contribution to the Greenland Ice Sheet surface mass balance loss. It effectively separates out the role of sea-surface temperature and sea-ice concentration forcing, which is found (corroborating some but not all previous studies) to be relatively minor. A valuable analysis of the extreme melt case studies of 2012 and 2019, and the difference in terms of climatic forcing between these events, is provided. The analysis is thorough and the paper is clearly written. It will be of wide interest to Greenland climate scientists and ice-sheet specialists. I recommend publication following a minor revision addressing the points below.
Specific comments
Line 26: please add the following recent relevant references:
Otosaka et al. (2023) https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/15/1597/2023/
Hanna et al. (2024) https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-023-00509-7#publish-with-us
Figure 1: define PGW-1, PGW-2 etc. I the figure caption.
Lines 167-179: please add that while GCMs may capture the periodicity of internal climate variability they may not capture the magnitude of such variability. Will taking the CESM-LE ensemble mean be affected by signal-to-noise issues with the GCMs in capturing North Atlantic circulation change?
l.201: Are there issues with the accuracy of prescribed SIC and SST for 1880-1899 that may affected the method used?
ll.252 & 480: please add the following highly relevant reference:
Hanna et al. (2021) https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6771
The green and blue lines on some plots look a bit similar; could they be distinguished more clearly?
l.496: please add the following highly relevant reference to “more persistent circulation regimes under global warming”:
Overland et al. (2012) https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2012GL053268