EGU26-11626, updated on 14 Mar 2026
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-11626
EGU General Assembly 2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Oral | Wednesday, 06 May, 17:00–17:10 (CEST)
 
Room 1.14
Evaluation of MARv3.14 over Greenland and the Impact of Model Resolution
Guillaume Timmermans1, Noël Brice1, Christoph Kittel1,2, Dethinne Thomas1,3, Ghilain Nicolas1,4, Lambin Clara1, and Fettweis Xavier1
Guillaume Timmermans et al.
  • 1Laboratory of Climatology, Department of Geography, SPHERES research unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
  • 2Physical Geography research group, Department of Geography, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
  • 3Geospatial Data Science and City Information Modeling, Department of Geography, SPHERES research unit, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
  • 4Royal Meteorological Institute of Belgium, Uccle, Belgium

Accurate simulation of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) surface mass balance (SMB) is essential for quantifying its contribution to sea-level rise. The regional atmospheric climate model MAR is widely used to study GrIS SMB changes and force ice-sheet models, highlighting the importance of assessing its performance and sensitivity to horizontal resolution. Here, we evaluate the latest MARv3.14 version at 5 km resolution and assess the impact of coarser resolutions (10–30 km) on simulated GrIS SMB and its components.

MAR outputs are evaluated against a range of independent observations, including in situ SMB measurements, automatic weather station records of near-surface meteorological variables, and satellite-derived melt extent and albedo products. At 5 km resolution, MAR reproduces observed SMB with a root-mean-square error of 0.53 m w.e. yr⁻¹. For near-surface meteorological variables and surface energy budget fluxes, model errors are smaller than the corresponding observed variability. The assimilation of bare-ice albedo, implemented in the latest MAR version, improves model performance in the ablation zone. Remaining biases in the accumulation zone suggest that improvements to the snow albedo scheme are further required. Simulated melt timing is consistent with satellite-based melt extent products.

Comparing simulations at different spatial resolutions, we find that SMB discrepancies mainly occur at the ice-sheet margins, characterized by strong topographic gradients. While integrated SMB differences generally remain within interannual variability, precipitation and runoff are highly sensitive to the model spatial resolution.

Corrections based on a vertical SMB gradient (as in Franco et al., 2012) or a sub-pixel methodology allowing the surface scheme (SISVAT) to be run at a higher resolution than the atmospheric model could deal in part with runoff discrepancies vs spatial resolution but precipitation anomalies remain a challenge. We conclude by discussing ongoing model developments, in particular the implementation of a sub-pixel methodology.

 

How to cite: Timmermans, G., Brice, N., Kittel, C., Thomas, D., Nicolas, G., Clara, L., and Xavier, F.: Evaluation of MARv3.14 over Greenland and the Impact of Model Resolution, EGU General Assembly 2026, Vienna, Austria, 3–8 May 2026, EGU26-11626, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu26-11626, 2026.