Effect of prescribed sea surface conditions on the modern and future Antarctic surface climate simulated by the ARPEGE atmosphere general circulation model

Beaumet, Julien; Déqué, Michel; Krinner, Gerhard; Agosta, Cécile; Alias, Antoinette

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-3023-2019

Articles | Volume 13, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-3023-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-3023-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 13, issue 11

Research article

|

18 Nov 2019

Research article |

| 18 Nov 2019

Effect of prescribed sea surface conditions on the modern and future Antarctic surface climate simulated by the ARPEGE atmosphere general circulation model

Julien Beaumet, Michel Déqué, Gerhard Krinner, Cécile Agosta, and Antoinette Alias

Download

Final revised paper (published on 18 Nov 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 03 Dec 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 30 Jan 2019
- AC2: 'Reviewer 1 - Authors reply', Julien Beaumet, 15 Mar 2019
EC1: 'Conclusion of first round of reviews', Christian Haas, 06 Mar 2019
- AC1: 'Final Response', Julien Beaumet, 07 Mar 2019

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Lorena Grabowski on behalf of the Authors (18 Apr 2019) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (18 May 2019) by Christian Haas

RR by Jan Lenaerts (14 Jun 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

I thank the authors for taking the time to address my comments and for revising this paper considerably. I think it has improved tremendously, and I applaud the authors for their effort. However, I have a few remaining comments that should be addressed, which I briefly highlight below.

P1, L9: Antarctic is capitalized (this error returns a few time)
P2, L9: uncertainties in
P3, L21: use one number consistently, either 35 or 40 km
P6, L12: moisture fluxes
P6, L13: sea ice
P6, L20: I would use ‘soil/snow’ or something equivalent
P7, L3: below = southward of / poleward of
P7, L16: although = however

Section 3.1.1: more quantitative description is required here. Associate qualitative assessments such as ‘underestimation’, ‘similar to’, etc. with actual numbers.

P8, L16: temperatures are higher, not warmer

Table 4: this is my largest issue with the new paper – the caption of the table mentions an area of 13.4 million km2 for the grounded AIS, and 12.3 million km2 a few lines below that. When comparing AIS integrated numbers, it is extremely important to use a common mask, such that the integrated AIS area is equivalent between all of the estimates.

P14, L3: a shift of the westerly jet would not necessarily be associated to a positive phase of the SAM – the SAM simply illustrates the surface pressure differences between 40 and 65 degrees South, and hence is more a manifestation of the meridional pressure /temperature gradient and associated strength of the westerlies. As an example, the SAM does not ‘know’ if the westerly jet maximum is at 55 degrees or 52 degrees South.

Table 6 caption: century is missing
Table 6: How can the numbers be significantly different if the uncertainties overlap?
P17, L4: For the experiment
P21, L25: something is wrong with the reference
P22, L29: circumspection = caution
Section 4.3: this is a very lengthy discussion – consider trimming.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (28 Jun 2019)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (06 Jul 2019) by Christian Haas

AR by Julien Beaumet on behalf of the Authors (23 Aug 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (05 Sep 2019) by Christian Haas

AR by Julien Beaumet on behalf of the Authors (13 Sep 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (28 Sep 2019) by Christian Haas

Short summary

The atmospheric model ARPEGE is used with a stretched grid in order to reach an average horizontal resolution of 35 km over Antarctica. Over 1981–2010, we forced the model with observed and modelled sea surface conditions (SSCs). For the late 21st century, we use original and bias-corrected sea surface conditions from RCP8.5 climate projections. We assess the impact of using direct or bias-corrected SSCs for the evolution of Antarctic climate and surface mass balance.