Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-n8gtw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T10:40:46.542Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Three positive feedback mechanisms for ice-sheet melting in a warming climate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Diandong Ren
Affiliation:
Australian Sustainable Development Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia E-mail: rendianyun@gmail.com
Lance M. Leslie
Affiliation:
Australian Sustainable Development Institute, Curtin University, Perth, Western Australia 6845, Australia E-mail: rendianyun@gmail.com School of Meteorology, University of Oklahoma, 120 David L. Boren Blvd., Suite 5900, Norman, Oklahoma 73072, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three positive feedback mechanisms that accelerate ice-sheet melting are assessed in a warming climate, using a numerical ice model driven by atmospheric climate models. The Greenland ice sheet (GrIS) is the modeling test-bed under accelerated melting conditions. The first feedback is the interaction of sea water with ice. It is positive because fresh water melts ice faster than salty water, owing primarily to the reduction in water heat capacity by solutes. It is shown to be limited for the GrIS, which has only a small ocean interface, and the grounding line of some fast glaciers becomes land-terminating during the 21st century. The second positive feedback, strain heating, is positive because it produces further ice heating inside the ice sheet. The third positive feedback, granular basal sliding, applies to all ice sheets and becomes the dominant feedback during the 21st century. A numerical simulation of Jakobshavn Isbræ over the 21st century reveals that all three feedback processes are active for this glacier. Compared with the year 2000 level, annual ice discharge into the ocean could increase by ∼1.4 km3 a−1 (∼5% of the present annual rate) by 2100. Granular basal sliding contributes ∼40% of this increase.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2013
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Land-cover mask for the Greenland ice sheet. The locations of Jakobshavn (J.), Kangerdlugssuaq (K.), Petermann (P.) and Helheim (H.) glaciers, the northeast Greenland ice stream (NE.) and the Summit (SMT) are labeled. Hatched areas are regions with ice loads but with bottom elevations lower than the present sea level. Red box delimits the 1 km simulation of Jakobshavn Isbræ in Figure 6. Inset is a zoomed Petermann Glacier (south is to the left), a vertical cross-section along the vertical red line.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Oceanic forcings shown at 10 m depth. (a) Flow speed (m s−1), (c) salinity (psu) and (e) potential temperature (K), with changes over the 21st century shown respectively in (b), (d) and (f). Contours in (c) and (e) are potential density (kg m−3, difference from 1000 kg m−3) and are the same in both panels. Contours in (d) and (f) are changes in potential density.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Terminus retreat for five fast glaciers at the margin of the GrIS: Helheim (H.), Jakobshavn (J.) and Kangerdlugssuaq (K.) glaciers, the northeast Greenland ice stream (NE.) and Petermann Glacier (P.). The retreat is perpendicular to the interface. Dotted lines indicate that the glaciers are likely to be totally land-terminated by that time, and the direct ocean effects will suddenly disappear.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Schematic of a water-terminating glacier. The water/ice interface cavity is usually wedge-shaped with angle θ. The model calculates the ice retreat normal to the interface. The grounding line retreat should be estimated with a multiplicative factor 1/tan θ which can be up to O(102) in magnitude. The portion that extends to sea (Lc) is limited by climate conditions, primarily by ice mass turnover rate and ocean temperature. Ice is brittle because its low melting-point diffusivity is ∼10−15 m2 s−1. The limiting length L for shelf break is a good indicator of grounding line retreat. θ increases as the climate warms. If the ice sheet is primarily land-based, the ocean’s effect diminishes as the grounding line retreats to ground above sea level (point N).

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Strain-heating rate relative to the rate at −35°C at six stations: Summit (SMT), Petermann Glacier (P.), Southern Dome (SD), Kangerdlugssuaq (K.), Helheim (H.) and Jakobshavn (J.) glaciers. The starting point corresponds to the value in 2000; the end point corresponds to the value in 2100. To differentiate clearly between locations, the Petermann Glacier data are indicated by a red dashed line, the Southern Dome data by a blue line, and the Helheim Glacier data by a green line.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. SEGMENT-ice simulation of the ice flow field at Jakobshavn Isbræ (red box in Fig. 1). (a) Year 2000 surface (u, v) velocity. (b) The u-velocity profile at a point near the mouth (ice/ocean interface, ‘+’ in (a)) for 2000 and a projected 2100 profile (dashed line). Ice flow is faster in 2100 because the ice temperature is higher; the back force from ocean hydrostatic pressure is lower because the tongue thins as ocean melting increases, and there is increased granular basal sliding speed. Including ice-thickness changes, the discharge rate at the mouth of Jakobshavn Isbræ has increased by ∼1.2 km3 a−1(∼5% of year 2000 value) by 2100. 1 km resolution ice geometry data are used in the model simulation. Meteorological fields for the projection are from CCSM3 under the SRES A1B scenario.