Future sea level contribution from Antarcticainferred from CMIP5 model forcing and itsdependence on precipitation ansatz
Various observational estimates indicate growing mass loss at Antarctica's margins but also heavier precipitation across the continent. In the future, heavier precipitation fallen on Antarctica will counteract any stronger iceberg discharge and increased basal melting of floating ice shelves dr...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications (EGU)
2020
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/49431/ https://oceanrep.geomar.de/id/eprint/49431/1/esd-11-1153-2020.pdf https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-2019-78 |
| Summary: | Various observational estimates indicate growing mass loss at Antarctica's margins but also heavier precipitation across the continent. In the future, heavier precipitation fallen on Antarctica will counteract any stronger iceberg discharge and increased basal melting of floating ice shelves driven by a warming ocean. Here, we use from nine CMIP5 models future projections, ranging from strong mitigation efforts to business-as-usual, to run an ensemble of ice-sheet simulations. We test, how the precipitation boundary condition determines Antarctica's sea-level contribution. The spatial and temporal varying climate forcings drive ice-sheet simulations. Hence, our ensemble inherits all spatial and temporal climate patterns, which is in contrast to a spatial mean forcing. Regardless of the applied boundary condition and forcing, some areas will lose ice in the future, such as the glaciers from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet draining into the Amundsen Sea. In general the simulated ice-sheet thickness grows in a broad marginal strip, where incoming storms deliver topographically controlled precipitation. This strip shows the largest ice thickness differences between the applied precipitation boundary conditions too. On average Antarctica's ice mass shrinks for all future scenarios if the precipitation is scaled by the spatial temperature anomalies coming from the CMIP5 models. In this approach, we use the relative precipitation increment per degree warming as invariant scaling constant. In contrast, Antarctica gains mass in our simulations if we apply the simulated precipitation anomalies of the CMIP5 models directly. Here, the scaling factors show a distinct spatial pattern across Antarctica. Furthermore, the diagnosed mean scaling across all considered climate forcings is larger than the values deduced from ice cores. In general, the scaling is higher across the East Antarctic Ice Sheet, lower across the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, and lowest around the Siple Coast. The latter is located on the east side of the Ross Ice ... |
|---|