4.8 Article

Cloud microphysics and circulation anomalies control differences in future Greenland melt

Journal

NATURE CLIMATE CHANGE
Volume 9, Issue 7, Pages 523-+

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41558-019-0507-8

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Environment Research Council [ME/M021025/1]
  2. European Research Council under the European Union [694188]
  3. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique (FNRS)
  4. Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen (FWO) under the EOS [O0100718F]
  5. Fonds de la Recherche Scientifique de Belgique (F.R.S.-FNRS) [2.5020.11]
  6. Federation Wallonie-Buxelles
  7. Walloon Region [1117545]
  8. European Research Council (ERC) [694188] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)
  9. NERC [NE/M021025/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recently, the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) has become the main source of barystatic sea-level rise(1,2). The increase in the GrIS melt is linked to anticyclonic circulation anomalies, a reduction in cloud cover and enhanced warm-air advection(3-7). The Climate Model Intercomparison Project fifth phase (CMIP5) General Circulation Models (GCMs) do not capture recent circulation dynamics; therefore, regional climate models (RCMs) driven by GCMs still show significant uncertainties in future GrIS sea-level contribution, even within one emission scenario(5,8-10). Here, we use the RCM Modele Atmospherique Regional to show that the modelled cloud water phase is the main source of disagreement among future GrIS melt projections. We show that, in the current climate, anticyclonic circulation results in more melting than under a neutral-circulation regime. However, we find that the GrIS longwave cloud radiative effect is extremely sensitive to the modelled cloud liquid-water path, which explains melt anomalies of +378 Gt yr(-1)(+1.04mm yr(-1)global sea level equivalent) in a +2 degrees C-warmer climate with a neutral-circulation regime (equivalent to 21% more melt than under anticyclonic circulation). The discrepancies between modelled cloud properties within a high-emission scenario introduce larger uncertainties in projected melt volumes than the difference in melt between low- and high-emission scenarios(11).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available