[Liwg-core] Rain-snow repartitioning

Lenaerts, J.T.M. (Jan) j.lenaerts at uu.nl
Wed Jan 11 14:52:47 MST 2017


Brief response:

(1) yes

(2) that's very tough to answer. A ramp from -2 to 2 would be more justifiable.

(3) less than on Greenland but it also increases melt. I mentioned that 126 has too little Antarctic melt so it will help to get it closer to the observations. 

Cheers,

Jan



Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

> Op 11 jan. 2017 om 22:39 heeft Bill Sacks <sacks at ucar.edu> het volgende geschreven:
> 
> Hi all (just including LIWG folks here),
> 
> I was just giving Bette a recap of our discussion on rain-snow repartitioning, and this raised a couple of questions for us:
> 
> (1) For Greenland, is it correct that a change to the rain-snow partitioning would lead to more rain, which is a degradation relative to observations – but that Jan and Bill L feel we can (and should) live with this degradation in order to boost the melt?
> 
> (2) Particularly if (1) is true: Since it feels like this achieves the right answer (net SMB) for the wrong reasons (too much rain): Has any thought been given to whether this makes sense in a climate change (future or paleo) world?
> 
> (3) Has anyone looked at what this change to rain-snow partitioning does over Antarctica? We want to be sure that we're not substantially degrading the Antarctica SMB from this change....
> 
> Thanks,
> Bill S
> _______________________________________________
> Liwg-core mailing list
> Liwg-core at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/liwg-core


More information about the Liwg-core mailing list