This is a follow-up to my question If its ice sheet were removed under modern atmospheric conditions, what climatic and ice-sheet equilibrium would be re-established over Antarctica?. As it has received no answers so far, I have decided to attempt to figure out an answer by simulating the scenario myself.

Specifically, the simulations would have these atmospheric and orbital starting conditions:

  1. Last Glacial Maximum
  2. 1913 (The absolute last year of the Little Ice Age if I were to pick one, due to the disappearance of glaciers from the Spanish Sierra Nevada)
  3. Current (2020)
  4. RCP-2.6
  5. RCP-8.5
  6. Fuck it, let's just burn all the fossil fuels

Given the very low albedo of the rock and open ocean, (in the latter 5 scenarios) the matching of the Southern Hemisphere summer with perihelion, the adiabatic lapse rate, and the greater incursion of warm lower-latitude air masses all working together to warm its climate, I have wondered since 2012 what equilibrium would be reached with ice cover on Antarctica given subsequent feedbacks, and how this would affect the climate of the rest of the world. Again, though I don't presume it will be very important with regards to the actual process of setting up the simulation, note that I don't just mean melted away, I mean removed from the Earth's surface (and preferably with any glacial accumulation, re-added to maintain a constant sea level). Where it ends up and how it ends up there is not important.

I have BEDMAP 2 (the most authoritative Antarctic subglacial topographic map set) in addition to ETOPO1 and BedMachine 3 (Greenlandic equivalents—I plan on also doing this for Greenland), and have heard of some reasonable public climate models (the low-res GUI-based EdGCM and the more-advanced CSCM, for example), but don't know how to proceed from there.

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I would rather call it a fantasy scenario than a simulation, becaue it switches off physics, creates a scenario and switches on physics again. Natural science cannot work that way, it explains things that are, not ones that are created by imagination. Suggesting to ask that in world building. $\endgroup$ – user20217 Jun 1 at 23:52
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @a_donda Hmm, that seems like an overly strict definition. This question looks like a simple sensitivity to boundary conditions experiment, which is a common thing to do with climate models, e.g., Greenland and Antarctica. It's nowhere near as wacky as some proposals we get here. $\endgroup$ – Deditos Jun 3 at 9:24
  • $\begingroup$ If this is an answer to your former question, then you should post it there, it is encouraged: earthscience.stackexchange.com/help/self-answer $\endgroup$ – Jean-Marie Prival Jun 3 at 15:56
  • $\begingroup$ Just returned from an absence, expecting some good answers, but was highly disappointed. To respond to @a_donda , first, where am I suggesting turning off physics and turning it back on? There are several physically-possible situations that may potentially lead to this outcome. Second, the idea that hypotheticals and thought experiments have no part in science is... odd. Third, the Worldbuilding stack exchange is not populated with the best, most qualified people to answer this question. $\endgroup$ – Grant Hartlage Aug 19 at 1:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @a_donda: one of the CMIP scenarios is what's called an 'Abrupt 4xCO2' run, where you take a model and quadruple the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere. These model runs tell you useful things, even though they are, obviously, not physically plausible, I suspect in much the same way that modelling the impulse response of systems tells you useful things about them. $\endgroup$ – tfb Aug 21 at 16:38

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.