[Liwg-core] large impact on SMB of reducing Hmax from 10 m w.e to 1 m w.e.

Kampenhout, L. van (Leo) L.vanKampenhout at uu.nl
Tue Jan 24 11:19:38 MST 2017


Hi Miren,

are the 1m runs started from cold start conditions? Beware that this probably introduces a bias because of the initial soil temperature of 250K, which is too cold for the ablation zone. It takes some time to equilibrate deep soil temperatures.
In my most recent ERA Interim tests I find a GIS melt difference of just 13% going from a 1m to 10m snowpack.

Cheers,
Leo



On 24 Jan 2017, at 17:51, Bill Sacks <sacks at ucar.edu<mailto:sacks at ucar.edu>> wrote:

Hi Miren and others... also including liwg-core,

I will not try to weigh in on the ideal settings here – others on this list are better qualified in this respect.

However, for now I'd just like to say that I'd prefer if we keep the same parameters applied for all glaciers, both because (a) what you're suggesting will require some extra code development, which is challenging to argue for at this point given the deadlines we are up against, and (b) unless there are physical justifications or other strong reasons, we generally try to avoid having different physics in different parts of the world.

Bill S

On Jan 24, 2017, at 8:59 AM, Miren Vizcaino <M.Vizcaino at tudelft.nl<mailto:M.Vizcaino at tudelft.nl>> wrote:

dear all,

please see results from Raymond with ERA-Interim forcing for the downscaled SMB (acab) and the CLM-SMB calculated from components

the last two rows in the table correspond to using the RACMO mask

The distribution of ablation areas are better modeled with Hmax = 1 m. w.e. than Hmax=10 m w.e., the integrated melt and SMB improve, and so does the refreezing fraction (50% vs. 70%; RACMO2.1.’s is 40%)

The results strongly suggest that Hmax controls the simulation of ablation areas. However, I am not sure if part of the problem is the initial condition (here #119 for the Hmax=10  m w.e. simulation) or if the model would drift anyway

to the “snow thickness clustering” situation. Checking this requires an extra long run

The Hmax-problem requires further investigation, but my quick thinking by now is: CESM, as opposed to RACMO, operates at 100 x 100 km scale, and cannot get the desired sub-scale sensitivity to e.g. inter-annual atmospheric

variations, if same elevation classes are permitted to drift to high snow thickness. We also have an issue with the albedo gap between 0.68 (snow) and 0.4 (ice), and I am not sure if the fractional snow cover fixes this in the way

we need.

My proposal is to run Greenland with Hmax= 1 m w.e. by now - and keep Antarctica with Hmax = 10 m w.e. I guess that the big downside is that in the accumulation area of the GrIS the new snow scheme will not give sensible results in

terms of snow density profiles, heat conduction, etc.,… but maybe Leo/Jan can have separate settings for runs with e.g. an static present-day GrIS?

Please let me know your thoughts here, thanks!

Miren





Begin forwarded message:

From: Raymond Sellevold - CITG <R.Sellevold-1 at tudelft.nl<mailto:R.Sellevold-1 at tudelft.nl>>
Subject: Slide from today
Date: January 24, 2017 at 1:30:49 PM GMT+1
To: Miren Vizcaino <M.Vizcaino at tudelft.nl<mailto:M.Vizcaino at tudelft.nl>>

Here is the slide from today that you wanted. Where it’s RACMO in the end reflects that I used the RACMO mask from Leo.

Raymond


<elevation_classes4.pdf><elevation_classes3.pdf>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/liwg-core/attachments/20170124/690090fd/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Liwg-core mailing list