Search USGSSearch

USGS · 70169236

Simulated high-latitude soil thermal dynamics during the past four decades

Abstract

Soil temperature (Ts ) change is a key indicator of the dynamics of permafrost. On seasonal and inter-annual time scales, the variability of Ts determines the active layer depth, which regulates hydrological soil properties and biogeochemical processes. On the multi-decadal scale, increasing T 5 s not only drives permafrost thaw/retreat, but can also trigger and accelerate the decomposition of soil organic carbon. The magnitude of permafrost carbon feedbacks is thus closely linked to the rate of change of soil thermal regimes. In this study, we used nine process-based ecosystem models with permafrost processes, all forced by different observation-based climate forcing during the period 1960–2000, to characterize the warming rate of Ts 10 in permafrost regions. There is a large spread of Ts trends at 20 cm depth across the models, with trend values ranging from 0.010 ± 0.003 to 0.031 ± 0.005 ◦C yr−1 . Most models show smaller increase in Ts with increasing depth. Air temperature (Ta ) and longwave downward radiation (LWDR) are the main drivers of Ts trends, but their relative contributions differ 15 amongst the models. Different trends of LWDR used in the forcing of models can explain 61 % of their differences in Ts trends, while trends of Ta only explain 5 % of the differences in Ts trends. Uncertain climate forcing contributes a larger uncertainty in Ts trends (0.021 ± 0.008 ◦C yr−1 , mean ± SD) than the uncertainty of model structure (0.012 ± 0.001 ◦C yr−1 ), diagnosed from the range of response between different mod- 20 els, normalized to the same forcing. In addition, the loss rate of near-surface permafrost area, defined as total area where the maximum seasonal active layer thickness (ALT) is less than 3 m loss rate is found to be significantly correlated with the magnitude of the trends of Ts at 1 m depth across the models (R = −0.85, P = 0.003), but not with the initial total near-surface permafrost area (R = −0.30, P = 0.438). The sensitivity of the total boreal near-surface permafrost area to T 25 s at 1 m, is estimated to be of −2.80 ± 0.67 million km2 ◦C −1 . Finally, by using two long-term LWDR datasets and relationships between trends of LWDR and Ts across models, we infer an observationconstrained total boreal near-surface permafrost area decrease comprised between 39 ± 14 × 103 and 75 ± 14 × 103 km2 yr−1 from 1960 to 2000. This corresponds to 9– 18 % degradation of the current permafrost area.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S. Peng, P. Ciais, T. Wang, I. Gouttevin, A. D. McGuire, D. Lawrence, E. Burke, X. Chen, C. Delire, C. Koven, A. MacDougall, A. Rinke, K. Saito, W. Zhang, R. Alkama, T. J. Bohn, B. Decharme, T. Hajima, D. Ji, D.P. Lettenmaier, P.A. Miller, J.C. Moore, B. Smith, T. Sueyoshi. 2016-01-20. Simulated high-latitude soil thermal dynamics during the past four decades. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-10-179-2016

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Diagnostic and model dependent uncertainty of simulated Tibetan permafrost area

We perform a land-surface model intercomparison to investigate how the simulation of permafrost area on the Tibetan Plateau (TP) varies among six modern stand-alone land-surface models (CLM4.5, CoLM, ISBA, JULES, LPJ-GUESS, UVic). We also examine the variability in simulated permafrost area and distribution introduced by five different methods of diagnosing permafrost (from modeled monthly ground temperature, mean annual ground and air temperatures, air and surface frost indexes). There is good agreement (99 to 135  ×  10 4 km 2 ) between the two diagnostic methods based on air temperature which are also consistent with the observation-based estimate of actual permafrost area (101  × 10 4 km 2 ). However the uncertainty (1 to 128  ×  10 4 km 2 ) using the three methods that require simulation of ground temperature is much greater. Moreover simulated permafrost distribution on the TP is generally only fair to poor for these three methods (diagnosis of permafrost from monthly, and mean annual ground temperature, and surface frost index), while permafrost distribution using air-temperature-based methods is generally good. Model evaluation at field sites highlights specific problems in process simulations likely related to soil texture specification, vegetation types and snow cover. Models are particularly poor at simulating permafrost distribution using the definition that soil temperature remains at or below 0 °C for 24 consecutive months, which requires reliable simulation of both mean annual ground temperatures and seasonal cycle, and hence is relatively demanding. Although models can produce better permafrost maps using mean annual ground temperature and surface frost index, analysis of simulated soil temperature profiles reveals substantial biases. The current generation of land-surface models need to reduce biases in simulated soil temperature profiles before reliable contemporary permafrost maps and predictions of changes in future permafrost distribution can be made for the Tibetan Plateau.

Tibeta Plateau