Advances in Permafrost Representation: Biophysical Processes in Earth System Models and the Role of Offline Models

ABSTRACT Permafrost is undergoing rapid changes due to climate warming, potentially exposing a vast reservoir of carbon to be released to the atmosphere, causing a positive feedback cycle. Despite the importance of this feedback, its specifics remain poorly constrained, because representing permafrost dynamics still poses a significant challenge for Earth System Models (ESMs). This review assesses the current state of permafrost representation in land surface models (LSMs) used in ESMs and offline permafrost models, highlighting both the progress made and the remaining gaps. We identify several key physical processes crucial for permafrost dynamics, including soil thermal regimes, freeze–thaw cycles, and soil hydrology, which are underrepresented in many models. While some LSMs have advanced significantly in incorporating these processes, others lack fundamental elements such as latent heat of freeze–thaw, deep soil columns, and Arctic vegetation dynamics. Offline permafrost models provide valuable insights, offering detailed process testing and aiding the prioritization of improvements in coupled LSMs. Our analysis reveals that while significant progress has been made in incorporating permafrost‐related processes into coupled LSMs, many small‐scale processes crucial for permafrost dynamics remain underrepresented. This is particularly important for capturing the complex interactions between physical and biogeochemical processes required to model permafrost carbon dynamics. We recommend leveraging advancements from offline permafrost models and progressively integrating them into LSMs, while recognizing the computational and technical challenges that may arise in coupled simulations. We highlight the importance of enhancing the representation of physical processes, including through improvements in model resolution and complexity, as this is a fundamental precursor to accurately incorporate biogeochemical processes and capture the permafrost carbon feedback.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Permafrost and Periglacial Processes
Published
2025-02-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp.2269
Citations
9
Primary Topic
Climate change and permafrost
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
11.71

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Advances in Permafrost Representation: Biophysical Processes in Earth System Models and the Role of Offline Models

Sebastian Westermann, Brendan M. Rogers, Heidrun Matthes, Philipp Porada et al.
9 citations
Permafrost and Periglacial Processes
Climate change and permafrost
11.71
article

Advances in Permafrost Representation: Biophysical Processes in Earth System Models and the Role of Offline Models

Sebastian Westermann, Brendan M. Rogers, Heidrun Matthes, Philipp Porada, Frans‐Jan W. Parmentier, Moritz Langer, A. L. L. Gagné-Landmann, Christian Beer, D. N. Huntzinger, Jon M. Wells, Elchin Jafarov, Hélène Genet, Aaron Boone, Tobias Stacke, Christina Schädel, William R. Wieder, Bertrand Decharme, Eleanor Burke, Adrien Damseaux
article en
9 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Permafrost is undergoing rapid changes due to climate warming, potentially exposing a vast reservoir of carbon to be released to the atmosphere, causing a positive feedback cycle. Despite the importance of this feedback, its specifics remain poorly constrained, because representing permafrost dynamics still poses a significant challenge for Earth System Models (ESMs). This review assesses the current state of permafrost representation in land surface models (LSMs) used in ESMs and offline permafrost models, highlighting both the progress made and the remaining gaps. We identify several key physical processes crucial for permafrost dynamics, including soil thermal regimes, freeze–thaw cycles, and soil hydrology, which are underrepresented in many models. While some LSMs have advanced significantly in incorporating these processes, others lack fundamental elements such as latent heat of freeze–thaw, deep soil columns, and Arctic vegetation dynamics. Offline permafrost models provide valuable insights, offering detailed process testing and aiding the prioritization of improvements in coupled LSMs. Our analysis reveals that while significant progress has been made in incorporating permafrost‐related processes into coupled LSMs, many small‐scale processes crucial for permafrost dynamics remain underrepresented. This is particularly important for capturing the complex interactions between physical and biogeochemical processes required to model permafrost carbon dynamics. We recommend leveraging advancements from offline permafrost models and progressively integrating them into LSMs, while recognizing the computational and technical challenges that may arise in coupled simulations. We highlight the importance of enhancing the representation of physical processes, including through improvements in model resolution and complexity, as this is a fundamental precursor to accurately incorporate biogeochemical processes and capture the permafrost carbon feedback.

Permafrost and Periglacial ProcessesVol. 36(2)
Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (DE), NSF National Center for Atmospheric Research (US), Alfred-Wegener-Institut Helmholtz-Zentrum für Polar- und Meeresforschung (DE), Met Office (GB), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR), Woodwell Climate Research Center (US), University of Alaska Fairbanks (US), Universität Hamburg (DE), Université Fédérale de Toulouse Midi-Pyrénées (FR), University of Oslo (NO), Northern Arizona University (US), Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques (FR), Météo-France (FR), NSF NCAR Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory (US), Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (DE), Garmisch-Partenkirchen Medical Center (DE), Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (NL)
European Commission, European Research Council
Life in Land
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Climate change and permafrost
11.71
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.