5 results
Search Results
Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
- ItemResults of the third Marine Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project (MISMIP+)(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2020) Cornford, Stephen L.; Seroussi, Helene; Asay-Davis, Xylar S.; Gudmundsson, G. Hilmar; Arthern, Rob; Borstad, Chris; Christmann, Julia; dos Santos, Thiago Dias; Feldmann, Johannes; Goldberg, Daniel; Hoffman, Matthew J.; Humbert, Angelika; Kleiner, Thomas; Leguy, Gunter; Lipscomb, William H.; Merino, Nacho; Durand, Gaël; Morlighem, Mathieu; Pollard, David; Rückamp, Martin; Williams, C. Rosie; Yu, HongjuWe present the result of the third Marine Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project, MISMIP+. MISMIP+ is intended to be a benchmark for ice-flow models which include fast sliding marine ice streams and floating ice shelves and in particular a treatment of viscous stress that is sufficient to model buttressing, where upstream ice flow is restrained by a downstream ice shelf. A set of idealized experiments first tests that models are able to maintain a steady state with the grounding line located on a retrograde slope due to buttressing and then explore scenarios where a reduction in that buttressing causes ice stream acceleration, thinning, and grounding line retreat. The majority of participating models passed the first test and then produced similar responses to the loss of buttressing. We find that the most important distinction between models in this particular type of simulation is in the treatment of sliding at the bed, with other distinctions - notably the difference between the simpler and more complete treatments of englacial stress but also the differences between numerical methods - taking a secondary role. © 2020 Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications. All rights reserved.
- ItemISMIP6 Antarctica: A multi-model ensemble of the Antarctic ice sheet evolution over the 21st century(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2020) Seroussi, Hélène; Nowicki, Sophie; Payne, Antony J.; Goelzer, Heiko; Lipscomb, William H.; Abe-Ouchi, Ayako; Agosta, Cécile; Albrecht, Torsten; Asay-Davis, Xylar; Barthel, Alice; Calov, Reinhard; Cullather, Richard; Dumas, Christophe; Galton-Fenzi, Benjamin K.; Gladstone, Rupert; Golledge, Nicholas R.; Gregory, Jonathan M.; Greve, Ralf; Hattermann, Tore; Hoffman, Matthew J.; Humbert, Angelika; Huybrechts, Philippe; Jourdain, Nicolas C.; Kleiner, Thomas; Larour, Eric; Leguy, Gunter R.; Lowry, Daniel P.; Little, Chistopher M.; Morlighem, Mathieu; Pattyn, Frank; Pelle, Tyler; Price, Stephen F.; Quiquet, Aurélien; Reese, Ronja; Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne; Shepherd, Andrew; Simon, Erika; Smith, Robin S.; Straneo, Fiammetta; Sun, Sainan; Trusel, Luke D.; Van Breedam, Jonas; van de Wal, Roderik S. W.; Winkelmann, Ricarda; Zhao, Chen; Zhang, Tong; Zwinger, ThomasIce flow models of the Antarctic ice sheet are commonly used to simulate its future evolution in response to different climate scenarios and assess the mass loss that would contribute to future sea level rise. However, there is currently no consensus on estimates of the future mass balance of the ice sheet, primarily because of differences in the representation of physical processes, forcings employed and initial states of ice sheet models. This study presents results from ice flow model simulations from 13 international groups focusing on the evolution of the Antarctic ice sheet during the period 2015-2100 as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). They are forced with outputs from a subset of models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), representative of the spread in climate model results. Simulations of the Antarctic ice sheet contribution to sea level rise in response to increased warming during this period varies between 7:8 and 30.0 cm of sea level equivalent (SLE) under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario forcing. These numbers are relative to a control experiment with constant climate conditions and should therefore be added to the mass loss contribution under climate conditions similar to presentday conditions over the same period. The simulated evolution of the West Antarctic ice sheet varies widely among models, with an overall mass loss, up to 18.0 cm SLE, in response to changes in oceanic conditions. East Antarctica mass change varies between 6:1 and 8.3 cm SLE in the simulations, with a significant increase in surface mass balance outweighing the increased ice discharge under most RCP 8.5 scenario forcings. The inclusion of ice shelf collapse, here assumed to be caused by large amounts of liquid water ponding at the surface of ice shelves, yields an additional simulated mass loss of 28mm compared to simulations without ice shelf collapse. The largest sources of uncertainty come from the climate forcing, the ocean-induced melt rates, the calibration of these melt rates based on oceanic conditions taken outside of ice shelf cavities and the ice sheet dynamic response to these oceanic changes. Results under RCP 2.6 scenario based on two CMIP5 climate models show an additional mass loss of 0 and 3 cm of SLE on average compared to simulations done under present-day conditions for the two CMIP5 forcings used and display limited mass gain in East Antarctica. © Author(s) 2020.
- ItemAntarctic ice sheet response to sudden and sustained ice-shelf collapse (ABUMIP)(Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2020) Sun, Sainan; Pattyn, Frank; Simon, Erika G.; Albrecht, Torsten; Cornford, Stephen; Calov, Reinhard; Dumas, Christophe; Gillet-Chaulet, Fabien; Goelzer, Goelzer; Golledge, Nicholas R.; Greve, Ralf; Hoffman, Matthew J.; Humbert, Angelika; Kazmierczak, Elise; Kleiner, Thomas; Leguy, Gunter R.; Lipscomb, William H.; Martin, Daniel; Morlighem, Mathieu; Nowicki, Sophie; Pollard, David; Price, Stephen; Quiquet, Aurélien; Seroussi, Hélène; Schlemm, Tanja; Sutter, Johannes; van de Wal, Roderik S.W.; Winkelmann, Ricarda; Zhang, TongAntarctica's ice shelves modulate the grounded ice flow, and weakening of ice shelves due to climate forcing will decrease their 'buttressing' effect, causing a response in the grounded ice. While the processes governing ice-shelf weakening are complex, uncertainties in the response of the grounded ice sheet are also difficult to assess. The Antarctic BUttressing Model Intercomparison Project (ABUMIP) compares ice-sheet model responses to decrease in buttressing by investigating the 'end-member' scenario of total and sustained loss of ice shelves. Although unrealistic, this scenario enables gauging the sensitivity of an ensemble of 15 ice-sheet models to a total loss of buttressing, hence exhibiting the full potential of marine ice-sheet instability. All models predict that this scenario leads to multi-metre (1-12 m) sea-level rise over 500 years from present day. West Antarctic ice sheet collapse alone leads to a 1.91-5.08 m sea-level rise due to the marine ice-sheet instability. Mass loss rates are a strong function of the sliding/friction law, with plastic laws cause a further destabilization of the Aurora and Wilkes Subglacial Basins, East Antarctica. Improvements to marine ice-sheet models have greatly reduced variability between modelled ice-sheet responses to extreme ice-shelf loss, e.g. compared to the SeaRISE assessments. Copyright © The Author(s) 2020.
- ItemThe future sea-level contribution of the Greenland ice sheet: A multi-model ensemble study of ISMIP6(Katlenburg-Lindau : Copernicus, 2020) Goelzer, Heiko; Nowicki, Sophie; Payne, Anthony; Larour, Eric; Seroussi, Helene; Lipscomb, William H.; Gregory, Jonathan; Abe-Ouchi, Ayako; Shepherd, Andrew; Simon, Erika; Agosta, Cécile; Alexander, Patrick; Aschwanden, Andy; Barthel, Alice; Calov, Reinhard; Chambers, Christopher; Choi, Youngmin; Cuzzone, Joshua; Dumas, Christophe; Edwards, Tamsin; Felikson, Denis; Fettweis, Xavier; Golledge, Nicholas R.; Greve, Ralf; Humbert, Angelika; Huybrechts, Philippe; Le clec'h, Sebastien; Lee, Victoria; Leguy, Gunter; Little, Chris; Lowry, Daniel P.; Morlighem, Mathieu; Nias, Isabel; Quiquet, Aurelien; Rückamp, Martin; Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne; Slater, Donald A.; Smith, Robin S.; Straneo, Fiammetta; Tarasov, Lev; van de Wal, Roderik; van den Broeke, MichielThe Greenland ice sheet is one of the largest contributors to global mean sea-level rise today and is expected to continue to lose mass as the Arctic continues to warm. The two predominant mass loss mechanisms are increased surface meltwater run-off and mass loss associated with the retreat of marine-terminating outlet glaciers. In this paper we use a large ensemble of Greenland ice sheet models forced by output from a representative subset of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP5) global climate models to project ice sheet changes and sea-level rise contributions over the 21st century. The simulations are part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6).We estimate the sea-level contribution together with uncertainties due to future climate forcing, ice sheet model formulations and ocean forcing for the two greenhouse gas concentration scenarios RCP8.5 and RCP2.6. The results indicate that the Greenland ice sheet will continue to lose mass in both scenarios until 2100, with contributions of 90-50 and 32-17mm to sea-level rise for RCP8.5 and RCP2.6, respectively. The largest mass loss is expected from the south-west of Greenland, which is governed by surface mass balance changes, continuing what is already observed today. Because the contributions are calculated against an unforced control experiment, these numbers do not include any committed mass loss, i.e. mass loss that would occur over the coming century if the climate forcing remained constant. Under RCP8.5 forcing, ice sheet model uncertainty explains an ensemble spread of 40 mm, while climate model uncertainty and ocean forcing uncertainty account for a spread of 36 and 19 mm, respectively. Apart from those formally derived uncertainty ranges, the largest gap in our knowledge is about the physical understanding and implementation of the calving process, i.e. the interaction of the ice sheet with the ocean. © Author(s) 2020.
- ItemFuture Sea Level Change Under Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 and Phase 6 Scenarios From the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets(Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, 2021) Payne, Antony J.; Nowicki, Sophie; Abe‐Ouchi, Ayako; Agosta, Cécile; Alexander, Patrick; Albrecht, Torsten; Asay‐Davis, Xylar; Aschwanden, Andy; Barthel, Alice; Bracegirdle, Thomas J.; Calov, Reinhard; Chambers, Christopher; Choi, Youngmin; Cullather, Richard; Cuzzone, Joshua; Dumas, Christophe; Edwards, Tamsin L.; Felikson, Denis; Fettweis, Xavier; Galton‐Fenzi, Benjamin K.; Goelzer, Heiko; Gladstone, Rupert; Golledge, Nicholas R.; Gregory, Jonathan M.; Greve, Ralf; Hattermann, Tore; Hoffman, Matthew J.; Humbert, Angelika; Huybrechts, Philippe; Jourdain, Nicolas C.; Kleiner, Thomas; Munneke, Peter Kuipers; Larour, Eric; Le clec'h, Sebastien; Lee, Victoria; Leguy, Gunter; Lipscomb, William H.; Little, Christopher M.; Lowry, Daniel P.; Morlighem, Mathieu; Nias, Isabel; Pattyn, Frank; Pelle, Tyler; Price, Stephen F.; Quiquet, Aurélien; Reese, Ronja; Rückamp, Martin; Schlegel, Nicole‐Jeanne; Seroussi, Hélène; Shepherd, Andrew; Simon, Erika; Slater, Donald; Smith, Robin S.; Straneo, Fiammetta; Sun, Sainan; Tarasov, Lev; Trusel, Luke D.; Van Breedam, Jonas; Wal, Roderik; Broeke, Michiel; Winkelmann, Ricarda; Zhao, Chen; Zhang, Tong; Zwinger, ThomasProjections of the sea level contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets (GrIS and AIS) rely on atmospheric and oceanic drivers obtained from climate models. The Earth System Models participating in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 6 (CMIP6) generally project greater future warming compared with the previous Coupled Model Intercomparison Project phase 5 (CMIP5) effort. Here we use four CMIP6 models and a selection of CMIP5 models to force multiple ice sheet models as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). We find that the projected sea level contribution at 2100 from the ice sheet model ensemble under the CMIP6 scenarios falls within the CMIP5 range for the Antarctic ice sheet but is significantly increased for Greenland. Warmer atmosphere in CMIP6 models results in higher Greenland mass loss due to surface melt. For Antarctica, CMIP6 forcing is similar to CMIP5 and mass gain from increased snowfall counteracts increased loss due to ocean warming.