The response of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) to a warmer climate is uncertain on long time scales. Climate models, such as those participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6), are used to assess this uncertainty. The Community Earth System Model version 2.1 (CESM2) is a CMIP6 model capable of running climate simulations with either one‐way coupling (fixed ice sheet geometry) or two‐way coupling (dynamic geometry) to the GrIS. The model features prognostic snow albedo, online downscaling using elevation classes, and a firn pack to refreeze percolating melt water. Here we evaluate the representation of the GrIS surface energy balance and surface mass balance in CESM2 at 1° resolution with fixed GrIS geometry. CESM2 agrees closely with ERA‐Interim reanalysis data for key controls on GrIS SMB: surface pressure, sea ice extent, 500 hPa geopotential height, wind speed, and 700 hPa air temperature. Cloudsat‐CALIPSO data show that supercooled liquid‐containing clouds are adequately represented, whereas comparisons to Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer and CM SAF Cloud, Albedo, and Surface Radiation data set from Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer data second edition data suggest that CESM2 underestimates surface albedo. The seasonal cycle and spatial patterns of surface energy balance and surface mass balance components in CESM2 agree well with regional climate model RACMO2.3p2, with GrIS‐integrated melt, refreezing, and runoff bracketed by RACMO2 counterparts at 11 and 1 km. Time series of melt, runoff, and SMB show a break point around 1990, similar to RACMO2. These results suggest that GrIS SMB is realistic in CESM2, which adds confidence to coupled ice sheet‐climate experiments that aim to assess the GrIS contribution to future sea level rise.
Earth system/ice‐sheet coupling is an area of recent, major Earth System Model (ESM) development. This work occurs at the intersection of glaciology and climate science and is motivated by a need for robust projections of sea‐level rise. The Community Ice Sheet Model version 2 (CISM2) is the newest component model of the Community Earth System Model version 2 (CESM2). This study describes the coupling and novel capabilities of the model, including: (1) an advanced energy‐balance‐based surface mass balance calculation in the land component with downscaling via elevation classes; (2) a closed freshwater budget from ice sheet to the ocean from surface runoff, basal melting, and ice discharge; (3) dynamic land surface types; and (4) dynamic atmospheric topography. The Earth system/ice‐sheet coupling is demonstrated in a simulation with an evolving Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) under an idealized high CO2scenario. The model simulates a large expansion of ablation areas (where surface ablation exceeds snow accumulation) and a large increase in surface runoff. This results in an elevated freshwater flux to the ocean, as well as thinning of the ice sheet and area retreat. These GrIS changes result in reduced Greenland surface albedo, changes in the sign and magnitude of sensible and latent heat fluxes, and modified surface roughness and overall ice sheet topography. Representation of these couplings between climate and ice sheets is key for the simulation of ice and climate interactions.
more » « less- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10449165
- Publisher / Repository:
- DOI PREFIX: 10.1029
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems
- Volume:
- 13
- Issue:
- 6
- ISSN:
- 1942-2466
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract The rate of growth or retreat of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets remains a highly uncertain component of future sea level change. Here we examine the simulation of Greenland ice sheet surface mass balance (GrIS SMB) in a development branch of the ModelE2 version of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) general circulation model (GCM). GCMs are often limited in their ability to represent SMB compared with polar region regional climate models. We compare ModelE2‐simulated GrIS SMB for present‐day (1996–2005) simulations with fixed ocean conditions, at a spatial resolution of 2° latitude by 2.5° longitude (~200 km), with SMB simulated by the Modèle Atmosphérique Régionale (MAR) regional climate model (1996–2005 at a 25‐km resolution). ModelE2 SMB agrees well with MAR SMB on the whole, but there are distinct spatial patterns of differences and large differences in some SMB components. The impacts of changes to the ModelE2 surface are tested, including a subgrid‐scale representation of SMB with surface elevation classes. This has a minimal effect on ice sheet‐wide SMB but corrects local biases. Replacing fixed surface albedo with satellite‐derived values and an age‐dependent scheme has a larger impact, increasing simulated melt by 60%–100%. We also find that lower surface albedo can enhance the effects of elevation classes. Reducing ModelE2 surface roughness length to values closer to MAR reduces sublimation by ~50%. Further work is required to account for meltwater refreezing in ModelE2 and to understand how differences in atmospheric processes and model resolution influence simulated SMB.
-
more » « less
Abstract A significant portion of surface melt on the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) is due to dark ice regions in the ablation zone, where solar absorption is influenced by the physical properties of the ice, light absorbing constituents (LACs), and the overlying crustal surface or melt ponds. Earth system models (ESMs) typically prescribe the albedo of ice surfaces as a constant value in the visible and near‐infrared spectral regions. This work advances ESM ice radiative transfer modeling by (a) incorporating a physically based radiative transfer model (SNow, ICe and Aerosol Radiation model Adding‐Doubling Version 4; SNICAR‐ADv4) into the Energy Exascale Earth System Model (E3SM), (b) determining spatially and temporally varying bare ice physical properties over the GrIS ablation zone from satellite observations to inform SNICAR‐ADv4, and (c) assessing the impacts on simulated GrIS albedo and surface mass balance associated with modeling of more realistic bare ice albedo. GrIS‐wide bare ice albedo in E3SMv2 is overestimated by ∼4% in the visible and ∼7% in the near‐infrared wavelengths compared to the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer. Our bare ice physical property retrieval method found that LACs, ice crustal surfaces, and melt ponds reduce visible albedo by 30% in the bare ice region of the GrIS ablation zone. The realistic bare ice albedo reduces surface mass balance by ∼145 Gt, or 0.4 mm of sea‐level equivalent between 2000 and 2021 compared to the default E3SM. This work highlights the importance of simulating bare ice albedo accurately and realistically to improve our ability to quantify changes in the GrIS surface mass and radiative energy budgets.
-
Abstract. Surface mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) hasaccelerated over the past decades, mainly due to enhanced surface meltingand liquid water runoff in response to atmospheric warming. A large portionof runoff from the GrIS originates from exposure of the darker bare ice inthe ablation zone when the overlying snow melts, where surface albedo playsa critical role in modulating the energy available for melting. In thisregard, it is imperative to understand the processes governing albedovariability to accurately project future mass loss from the GrIS. Bare-icealbedo is spatially and temporally variable and contingent on non-linearfeedbacks and the presence of light-absorbing constituents. An assessment ofmodels aiming at simulating albedo variability and associated impacts onmeltwater production is crucial for improving our understanding of theprocesses governing these feedbacks and, in turn, surface mass loss fromGreenland. Here, we report the results of a comparison of the bare-iceextent and albedo simulated by the regional climate model ModèleAtmosphérique Régional (MAR) with satellite imagery from theModerate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) for the GrIS below70∘ N. Our findings suggest that MAR overestimates bare-ice albedoby 22.8 % on average in this area during the 2000–2021 period with respectto the estimates obtained from MODIS. Using an energy balance model toparameterize meltwater production, we find this bare-ice albedo bias canlead to an underestimation of total meltwater production from the bare-icezone below 70∘ N of 42.8 % during the summers of 2000–2021.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) has been shown in climate models to reduce some impacts of global warming in the Arctic, including the loss of sea ice, permafrost thaw, and reduction of Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) mass; SAI at high latitudes could preferentially target these impacts. In this study, we use the Community Earth System Model to simulate two Arctic‐focused SAI strategies, which inject at 60°N latitude each spring with injection rates adjusted to either maintain September Arctic sea ice at 2030 levels (“Arctic Low”) or restore it to 2010 levels (“Arctic High”). Both simulations maintain or restore September sea ice to within 10% of their respective targets, reduce permafrost thaw, and increase GrIS surface mass balance by reducing runoff. Arctic High reduces these impacts more effectively than a globally focused SAI strategy that injects similar quantities of SO2at lower latitudes. However, Arctic‐focused SAI is not merely a “reset button” for the Arctic climate, but brings about a novel climate state, including changes to the seasonal cycles of Northern Hemisphere temperature and sea ice and less high‐latitude carbon uptake relative to SSP2‐4.5. Additionally, while Arctic‐focused SAI produces the most cooling near the pole, its effects are not confined to the Arctic, including detectable cooling throughout most of the northern hemisphere for both simulations, increased mid‐latitude sulfur deposition, and a southward shift of the location of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. For these reasons, it would be incorrect to consider Arctic‐focused SAI as “local” geoengineering, even when compared to a globally focused strategy.
