4.7 Article

Importance of Orography for Greenland Cloud and Melt Response to Atmospheric Blocking

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 33, 期 10, 页码 4187-4206

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0527.1

关键词

Ice sheets; Blocking; Cloud cover; Topographic effects; Climate change; Climate variability

资金

  1. Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Summer Student Fellow program
  2. U.S. National Science Foundation [AGS-1355339]
  3. European Research Council [758005]
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [758005] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

More frequent high pressure conditions associated with atmospheric blocking episodes over Greenland in recent decades have been suggested to enhance melt through large-scale subsidence and cloud dissipation, which allows more solar radiation to reach the ice sheet surface. Here we investigate mechanisms linking high pressure circulation anomalies to Greenland cloud changes and resulting cloud radiative effects, with a focus on the previously neglected role of topography. Using reanalysis and satellite data in addition to a regional climate model, we show that anticyclonic circulation anomalies over Greenland during recent extreme blocking summers produce cloud changes dependent on orographic lift and descent. The resulting increased cloud cover over northern Greenland promotes surface longwave warming, while reduced cloud cover in southern and marginal Greenland favors surface shortwave warming. Comparison with an idealized model simulation with flattened topography reveals that orographic effects were necessary to produce area-averaged decreasing cloud cover since the mid-1990s and the extreme melt observed in the summer of 2012. This demonstrates a key role for Greenland topography in mediating the cloud and melt response to large-scale circulation variability. These results suggest that future melt will depend on the pattern of circulation anomalies as well as the shape of the Greenland Ice Sheet.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据