the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A high-resolution pan-Arctic meltwater discharge dataset from 1950 to 2021
Abstract. Arctic air temperatures have increased about four times faster than the global average since about 1980. Consequently the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost about twice as much ice as the Antarctic Ice Sheet between 2003 and 2019, and mass loss from glaciers and ice caps is also dominated by those that lie in the Arctic. Thus, Arctic land ice loss is currently a major contributor to global sea level rise. This increasing freshwater flux into the Arctic and North Atlantic oceans, will also impact physical, chemical and biological processes across a range of domains and spatiotemporal scales. Although, meltwater discharge data at Arctic coastlines are available from two existing datasets, these are limited by their spatial resolution and/or coverage. Here, we improve upon previous work and provide a high-resolution coastal meltwater discharge data product that covers all Arctic regions, where land ice is present, i.e. the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard, Russian Arctic Islands. Coastal meltwater discharge data were derived from Modèle Atmosphérique Régional daily ice and land runoff products between 1950 and 2021, which we statistically downscaled from their original ~6 km resolution to 250 m. The complete data processing algorithm, including downscaling, is fully documented and relies on open-source software. The coastal discharge database is disseminated in easily accessible and storage efficient netCDF files.
- Preprint
(1792 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(334 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on essd-2024-169', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Nov 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on essd-2024-169', Anonymous Referee #2, 21 Nov 2024
Review of
A high-resolution pan-Arctic meltwater discharge dataset from 1950 to 2021
by Igneczi and Bamber
General
This paper presents a new daily, 250 m resolution, 71-year runoff dataset for the Arctic, partitioning between runoff from ice and tundra. Its main strengths are the high temporal and spatial resolution, long time series and consistent source data treatment. Its main weaknesses are using only a single model product and the lack of detailed (regional) evaluation. This makes it hard to judge whether the (sometimes significant) differences that are found when comparing with previous products represent real improvements. See major comments below.
Major commentsl. 117: If you go from 90 to 250 m resolution, how do you deal with fractional ice cover?
l. 141: Was the RCM forced hourly by ERA5? Usually this is every three hours. How do you assess non-glaciated runoff from regions not covered by the MAR domain?
Section 4.1: Although I appreciate that the authors prefer consistency in their calculations, it would be good to show/discuss the potential impact of solely relying on surface routing over e.g. the Greenland ice sheet.
Please briefly discuss how findings in this recent paper, which shows that meltwater is stored in the glacial Greenland system for significant amounts of time, could affect your results: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08096-3
l. 260: What albedo product was used in MAR? Albedo does typically not vary smoothly, making it harder to downscale as a function of elevation. Allowing albedo only to increase with increasing elevation may not be a valid assumption in many areas. How are the albedo corrections used in the final runoff product?
Section 4: Although useful, a bulk evaluation does not necessarily align with the bulk of the applications and users, which may well predominantly use dingle basin timeseries.
l. 374: "We propose...". This and later hypotheses can be -at least partly- confirmed or rejected by comparing the runoff products in elevation bins: is the difference indeed deriving from the lower elevations which are better resolved? Same for non-Greenland ice.
l. 392: I find it unlikely that resolution is the only/leading explanation for the large differences in Greenland tundra runoff. This can be relatively easily checked by comparing total tundra area, the depth of the seasonal snow cover and rainfall. This can also be used to provide a more robust answer to the question why tundra runoff outside Greenland agrees better (although the variability is again more different).
IN general, I miss a direct comparison between the non-downscaled and downscaled products. Where/when do the differences occur, and can it be objectively assessed whether the downscaling improves upon the original products? It presumably does, but unless it is somehow quantified this remains speculative.
Minor comments
l. 25: warmed -> increased (my strong preference!)
l. 159: This equation holds for runoff from land ice, please specify.
l. 340: If find the reasoning for distinguishing runoff from above and below the snow line hard to follow. Why is it relevant? Figure 6 suggests that the large majority of runoff comes from below the snow line. Interpretation?
l. 410: What is meant by "its overall uncertainty"? I presume you mean the uncertainty in runoff?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-2024-169-RC2
Data sets
Pan-Arctic land-ice and tundra meltwater discharge database from 1950 to 2021 Adam Igneczi and Jonathan L. Bamber https://doi.pangaea.de/10.1594/PANGAEA.967544
Model code and software
Meltwater discharge data processing description Adam Igneczi https://github.com/ignecziadam/meltwater_discharge.git
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
395 | 114 | 66 | 575 | 42 | 10 | 14 |
- HTML: 395
- PDF: 114
- XML: 66
- Total: 575
- Supplement: 42
- BibTeX: 10
- EndNote: 14
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1