| Literature DB >> 27386509 |
Max Berkelhammer1, David C Noone2, Hans Christian Steen-Larsen3, Adriana Bailey4, Christopher J Cox5, Michael S O'Neill6, David Schneider7, Konrad Steffen8, James W C White9.
Abstract
Despite rapid melting in the coastal regions of the Greenland Ice Sheet, a significant area (~40%) of the ice sheet rarely experiences surface melting. In these regions, the controls on annual accumulation are poorly constrained owing to surface conditions (for example, surface clouds, blowing snow, and surface inversions), which render moisture flux estimates from myriad approaches (that is, eddy covariance, remote sensing, and direct observations) highly uncertain. Accumulation is partially determined by the temperature dependence of saturation vapor pressure, which influences the maximum humidity of air parcels reaching the ice sheet interior. However, independent proxies for surface temperature and accumulation from ice cores show that the response of accumulation to temperature is variable and not generally consistent with a purely thermodynamic control. Using three years of stable water vapor isotope profiles from a high altitude site on the Greenland Ice Sheet, we show that as the boundary layer becomes increasingly stable, a decoupling between the ice sheet and atmosphere occurs. The limited interaction between the ice sheet surface and free tropospheric air reduces the capacity for surface condensation to achieve the rate set by the humidity of the air parcels reaching interior Greenland. The isolation of the surface also acts to recycle sublimated moisture by recondensing it onto fog particles, which returns the moisture back to the surface through gravitational settling. The observations highlight a unique mechanism by which ice sheet mass is conserved, which has implications for understanding both past and future changes in accumulation rate and the isotopic signal in ice cores from Greenland.Entities:
Keywords: Greenland Ice sheet; atmospheric boundary layer; climate change; ice-atmosphere interaction; polar climate; water isotopes
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27386509 PMCID: PMC4928998 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.1501704
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Adv ISSN: 2375-2548 Impact factor: 14.136
Fig. 1Humidity profiles over Summit Camp.
(A) Distribution of the ratio between the water vapor mixing ratio at the surface (~0.1 m) and at ~40 m taken from hourly averaged profiles between 2012 and 2014. (B) Saturation mixing ratios as a function of temperature (). Theoretical summer and winter mixing lines with schematic depictions of where the air inlets in Fig. 2 would be sampling.
Fig. 2Vertical profiles of the isotopic ratio (δ18O) and humidity at Summit Camp.
(Top) Isotopic ratio profile. (Bottom) Water vapor mixing ratio profile. The seasonal profiles were generated as the average of all hourly profiles from the respective time window and reported relative to the value at the top inlet. Red (green) lines are generated from profiles during stable (unstable) periods (fig. S3), and the error envelope represents the 66th and 90th percentiles. The dotted line is the average of all profiles. Blue dots below the profiles are the average isotopic ratios measured from the firn interstitial vapor. The error envelop for the firn vapor is 1 SD.
Fig. 3Rayleigh distillation and inversion strength.
(A) Isotopic difference between collected rime and simultaneous vapor (Δ18O) plotted as a function of inversion strength measured as the difference between the surface and 10-m temperatures. (B) Evolution of the difference between the condensation reservoir and the initial vapor source as a function of fraction of moisture remaining (Fo). The coloring of points corresponds to the Fo values in (A). (C) Isotopic composition of the surface latent heat flux derived using the gradient method against the isotopic composition of the background vapor. Profiles were selected only when the correlation coefficient between inverse of the water vapor mixing ratio and δ18O exceeded 0.8 (). Colored dots show the inferred isotopic fluxes and measured isotopic ratio of the vapor for 5°C bins. The fit of the derived flux against the background vapor intercepts with the 1:1 line at cold temperatures, providing a similar perspective on hydrological closure during the winter season as depicted in (A) and (B).
Fig. 4Temperature inversions and accumulation at Summit Camp.
(A) Seasonal cycle of inversion strength inferred by subtracting temperatures recorded at the uppermost and lowermost temperature probes. (B) Trend in winter (blue) and summer (red) inversion frequency. The error envelope shows the response of the trend to shifting the threshold for an “inversion event” between 2° and 4°C. A best-fit line through the annual data and 95% confidence interval on the fit are also shown. (C) Recent accumulation near Summit Camp assessed by looking at the burial rate of a series of bamboo poles (). Best-fit lines for the different seasons [annual, NDJFM (November to March), and MJJAS (May to September)] and the 90% confidence interval for NDJFM (gray lines) are shown. (D) Comparison between winter accumulation from Summit and the nearby IceSat site using the same technique. The numbers correspond to the year (that is, “06” is 2006). The dotted line is the 1:1 line, and the solid line is the best-fit linear regression showing that there are local differences in total accumulation but interannual variability is consistent.