Skip to content
PaperFren

Ice sheets

SH circulation patterns shape Antarctic snowfall

Marshall GJ, Thompson DWJ, van den Broeke MR · Geophysical research letters · 2017

Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC

BAM, SAM, and PSA polarities rearrange Antarctic precipitation, with PSA1 explaining ~40% of daily variability in West Antarctica.

Study at a glance

Design
Other — Composites of RACMO2 Antarctic precipitation for BAM/SAM/PSA circulation phases (1979–2013)
N
35-year reanalysis/model composite study; not a discrete sample N
Population
Antarctic Ice Sheet precipitation under Southern Hemisphere circulation modes
Outcome
Spatial precipitation rearrangements; PSA1 explaining ~40% of West Antarctic daily variance

Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.

Key findings

BAM+ wets coastal East Antarctica; SAM+ wets the western Peninsula but dries the lee and the Plateau; PSA1+ can more than double Marie Byrd Land/Ross Ice Shelf precipitation. PSA1 accounts for ~40% of daily West Antarctic precipitation variance. Annual-mean index trends are not significant over 35 years.

Methodology

Authors composited 1979–2013 RACMO2 precipitation and ERA-Interim moisture fluxes for days when BAM, SAM, PSA1, or PSA2 indices exceeded ±1, and examined Byrd and Law Dome extremes.

Limitations

RACMO is still a model of precipitation, not gauges. Daily modes explain only modest fractions of day-to-day noise. 1979–2013 cannot project 21st-century SAM/PSA changes.

How this study connects

Role on claims

Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.

  • SupportsIce sheetsconcept

    This library holds 11 empirical papers on ice sheets with measured outcomes rather than reviews.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsIce sheetsconcept

    BAM, SAM, and PSA polarities rearrange Antarctic precipitation, with PSA1 explaining ~40% of daily variability in West Antarctica.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • Atmospheric rivers and moisture fluxes are often defined on a reanalysis grid. A polar vIVT detector on MERRA-2 (1980–2020) attributed 374±90 Gt yr⁻¹, 13%±3% of Antarctic Ice Sheet precipitation, to ARs that occur <1.5% of the time; ERA-Interim moisture fluxes composited with RACMO2 showed PSA1 explaining about 40% of daily West Antarctic precipitation variance.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • Reanalysis precipitation over ice sheets is not interchangeable with ice-core chemistry. AR snowfall shares (13%±3%) are MERRA-2-based and not ice-core validated in that paper; the SH circulation paper uses RACMO2 precipitation, not gauges, and mentions Byrd and Law Dome as geographic extremes. A student who cites both as 'ice-core results' is mixing methods.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsIce Core Recordsmethod

    The third paper in this index uses Byrd and Law Dome as named extremes in a 1979–2013 RACMO2/ERA-Interim composite of Southern Hemisphere circulation. Ice-core hits in the body are geographic, not a new core chemistry series. It belongs here as a caution about lexicon matching, and as a reminder that modelled precipitation at core sites is still a model.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

  • SupportsIce Core Recordsmethod

    Measuring organics in a core, inverting published ice-core CH₄, and compositing modelled snowfall at core sites are three different uses of 'ice core.' The Bouvet paper is laboratory chemistry on ice; the methane paper is a box-model inversion of existing core time series; the circulation paper is not a core study. Combining them into one 'what ice cores show' paragraph would be a category error.

    Evidence for the claim as stated.

Open questions

Tensions this paper is part of

From concept pages' “where studies disagree.” Disagreement means the same question; scope means different assays, populations, or outcomes.

  • Scope difference — different assays, populations, or outcomes

    Reanalysis precipitation over ice sheets is not interchangeable with ice-core chemistry. AR snowfall shares (13%±3%) are MERRA-2-based and not ice-core validated in that paper; the SH circulation paper uses RACMO2 precipitation, not gauges, and mentions Byrd and Law Dome as geographic extremes. A student who cites both as 'ice-core results' is mixing methods.

    Also on this tension

  • Scope difference — different assays, populations, or outcomes

    Measuring organics in a core, inverting published ice-core CH₄, and compositing modelled snowfall at core sites are three different uses of 'ice core.' The Bouvet paper is laboratory chemistry on ice; the methane paper is a box-model inversion of existing core time series; the circulation paper is not a core study. Combining them into one 'what ice cores show' paragraph would be a category error.

Related papers in this topic

Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.