<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-24-2003-2020</article-id><title-group><article-title>Revisiting extreme precipitation amounts over southern South America and implications for the Patagonian Icefields</article-title><alt-title>Revisiting extreme precipitation amounts over southern South America</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Revisiting extreme precipitation amounts over southern South America}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{T. Sauter}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <name><surname>Sauter</surname><given-names>Tobias</given-names></name>
          <email>tobias.sauter@fau.de</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2232-8096</ext-link></contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><institution>Climate System Research Group, Institute of Geography,
Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU),<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> Erlangen,
Germany</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Tobias Sauter (tobias.sauter@fau.de)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>23</day><month>April</month><year>2020</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>24</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <fpage>2003</fpage><lpage>2016</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>7</day><month>May</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>20</day><month>June</month><year>2019</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>5</day><month>March</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>12</day><month>March</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2020 Tobias Sauter</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2020</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e79">Patagonia is thought to be one of the wettest regions on Earth,
although available regional precipitation estimates vary considerably. This
uncertainty complicates understanding and quantifying the observed
environmental changes, such as glacier recession, biodiversity decline in
fjord ecosystems and enhanced net primary production. The Patagonian
Icefields, for example, are one of the largest contributors to sea-level
rise outside the polar regions, and robust hydroclimatic projections are
needed to understand and quantify current and future mass changes. The
reported projections of precipitation from numerical modelling studies tend
to overestimate those from in situ determinations, and the plausibility of
these numbers has never been carefully scrutinized, despite the
significance of this topic to our understanding of observed environmental
changes. Here I use simple physical arguments and a linear model to test the
plausibility of the current precipitation estimates and its impact on the
Patagonian Icefields. The results show that environmental conditions
required to sustain a mean precipitation amount exceeding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> are untenable according to the regional moisture flux. The revised
precipitation values imply a significant reduction in the surface mass balance
of the Patagonian Icefields compared to previously reported values. This
yields a new perspective on the response of Patagonia's glaciers to climate
change and their sea-level contribution and might also help reduce
uncertainties in the change of other precipitation-driven environmental
phenomena.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e117">Patagonia's weather and climate are largely shaped by baroclinic eddies,
which are characterized by the interaction of the planetary waves with the
mean flow (Garreaud,
2009; Garreaud et al., 2013; Schneider et al., 2003; Vallis et al., 2014).
The same mesoscale eddies efficiently transfer water vapour from the tropics
poleward (Langhamer
et al., 2018; Schneider et al., 2010; Trenberth et al., 2005), and regularly
(every 9–12 d) these trigger narrow filaments of water-vapour-rich bursts called
atmospheric rivers. These features temporarily increase the vertically
integrated water vapour content (IWV) in the Southern Hemisphere
midlatitudes by more than 200 % (Durre et al., 2006; Waliser and
Guan, 2017). More than half of all extreme precipitation events (above the
98th percentile) in Patagonia are associated with landfalling atmospheric
rivers (Waliser and Guan, 2017). Given the tight coupling
between atmospheric moisture transport and hydroclimatic response, changes
in moisture transport mechanisms not only dominate the interannual and
multi-decadal precipitation variability in Patagonia (Aguirre
et al., 2018; Aravena and Luckman, 2009; Garreaud, 2007; Garreaud and
Muñoz, 2005; Muñoz and Garreaud, 2005; Sauter et al., 2009;
Schneider and Gies, 2004; Viale and Garreaud, 2015; Weidemann et al., 2013,
2018a) but also dictate the fate of the ice masses in this region.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e123">Comparison of mean precipitation estimates on the SPI and NPI
averaged over the entire icefield and the western (210–330<inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and eastern (30–150<inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) slopes. Values are given in m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The local maximum values, if available, are shown in parentheses. OPM: linear orographic precipitation model. DRS: drying ratio scaling.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.95}[.95]?><oasis:tgroup cols="8">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right" colsep="1"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col2" nameend="col4" align="center" colsep="1">SPI </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col5" nameend="col7" align="center">NPI </oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">Periods</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">West</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">East</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Mean</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">West</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">East</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.06</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.51</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.93</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.06</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.42</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.38</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.59</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.83</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.37</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2010–2016</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.92</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.43</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.93</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.43</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.93</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.30</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.03</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.81</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.60</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.85</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.82</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.16</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.40</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.78</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.66</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2500–3000 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.37</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>5</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.93</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.13</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.67</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.84</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.53</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2000–2500 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.39</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.70</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.58</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.93</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.69</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.58</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.20</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.63</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.10</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1000–2000 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.29</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.13</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.62</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.26</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.62</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.77</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.81</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.53</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.26</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.44</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.43</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.56</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.04</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.81</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.54</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.77</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.05</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.99</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.59</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.02</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.68</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.80</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.49</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.60</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.69</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.90</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.53</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2010–2016</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.39</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.99</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10.37</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.96</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10.37</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.96</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10.12</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.95</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.89</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.89</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.56</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.94</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.94</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.90</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.67</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.85</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.93</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.85</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.07</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.79</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2500–3000 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.73</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.78</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.81</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.71</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.05</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.35</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.92</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.59</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2000–2500 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.08</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.61</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.46</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.65</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.55</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.57</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.16</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.75</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.69</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.48</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.57</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1000–2000 m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.19</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.61</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.17</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.00</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.21</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.67</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.45</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.30</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.58</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1000</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.34</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.53</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.77</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.84</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.39</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.74</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.58</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.84</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.68</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.72</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.67 (8.06)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.66 (7.98)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">4.70 (7.95)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">4.94 (9.68)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">4.95 (9.68)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.08 (9.27)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">2010–2016</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.45 (17.71)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">8.41 (17.49)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">8.53 (17.40)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">9.16 (22.12)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">9.19 (22.12)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">9.54 (20.99)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col8">Other studies </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Schaefer et al. (2015)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8.36</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.03</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.37</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1975–2011</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mernild et al. (2017)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.13</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.32</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.95</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.34</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1979–2014</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Lenaerts et al. (2014)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">–</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1979–2012</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Escobar (1992)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">7.0</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">6.7 (over the</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">1960–1980</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">broad plateau)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"/>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1873">The Andes constitute an effective barrier to the impinging moist
tropospheric air masses, forming one of the most extreme climatic divides
found worldwide (Barrett
et al., 2009; Garreaud, 2009; Garreaud et al., 2013; Rasmussen et al., 2007;
Smith and Evans, 2007). The strong orographic influence on the
precipitation distribution is evident from both remote sensing (Wentz et al., 1998) and terrestrial<?pagebreak page2004?> observations (Fig. 1).
Despite observational uncertainty along the coast, two characteristic
precipitation regions are apparent: (i) a maritime Precordillera region
with annual precipitation exceeding 2–3 m w.e. (water equivalent) and (ii) a semi-arid rain-shadow region (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e.) east of the main ridge
that extends several thousand kilometres towards the South Atlantic.
However, little is known about precipitation along the main ridge and, in
particular, on the Patagonian Icefields. Current estimates from firn cores (Schwikowski et al., 2006; Shiraiwa et al., 2002),
discharge measurements (Escobar, 1992) and numerical modelling (Bravo
et al., 2019; Lenaerts et al., 2014; Mernild et al., 2017; Schaefer et al.,
2013, 2015; Weidemann et al., 2018b) suggest average annual precipitation
rates of 5 to 8 m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and of 7 to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the Northern and Southern Patagonian Icefield (NPI; SPI),
respectively (see Table 1). Extreme precipitation rates between 15 m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Mernild et al.,
2017; Schaefer et al., 2013, 2015; Schwikowski et al., 2006) and 30 m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> are suspected at isolated locations  (Lenaerts et
al., 2014). If these precipitation magnitudes are realistic, it is likely
that the SPI is one of the wettest – if not <italic>the</italic> wettest – places on Earth.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e1951">Precipitation climatology in southern South America. The filled-in
circles indicate precipitation amounts observed by the observational
network of the Dirección Meteorológica de Chile (DMC) and the
Dirección General de Aguas (DGA). Also included are the permanent weather station measurements that were taken at the Gran Campo Nevado Ice Cap. The colour-shaded areas over the ocean show the rainfall distribution
based on the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) satellite mission. Black
dashed lines roughly delineate the maritime Precordillera range, Andes main
ridge and the semiarid Pampa region. Also indicated are the Northern (NPI)
and Southern Patagonian Icefields (SPI). The dashed area shows the semi-arid
rain-shadow region. Also shown are the simulation (D2) and forcing (D1)
domains.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d1e1960">The considerable uncertainty in precipitation amounts in Patagonia not only
affects our current understanding of the local hydrological cycle but also
has profound impacts on studies concerned with fjord ecosystems (Landaeta et al., 2012),
biological production in water columns (Aracena et al.,
2011; Vargas et al., 2018), net primary production (Jobbágy
et al., 2002), glacier mass balance (Escobar,
1992; Foresta et al., 2018; Lenaerts et al., 2014; Mernild et al., 2017;
Schaefer et al., 2013, 2015; Schwikowski et al., 2006; Shiraiwa et al.,
2002; Weidemann et al., 2018b; Willis et al., 2012) and its contribution to
sea-level rise (Braun
et al., 2019; Malz et al., 2018; Marzeion et al., 2012; Rignot et al.,
2003). Reducing the plausible range of precipitation rates is a key step
towards improved process understanding of such systems and offers new
perspectives on future changes.</p>
      <p id="d1e1963">Here I use simple physical scaling arguments and a linear modelling approach
to test the plausibility of the current precipitation estimates in central
Patagonia (45–52<inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S). In particular, I address the
question of whether the water vapour flux (WVF) from the tropics to the
midlatitudes by baroclinic eddies can sustain these extreme precipitation
estimates. The assessment of the hypothesis relies on three<?pagebreak page2005?> fundamental
assumptions. (i) The orographically induced precipitation is proportional to
the incoming WVF, which acts as the major moisture resource for the
precipitation system. This implies that uncertainties in the incoming WVF
directly impact the precipitation estimate. (ii) The terrain-forced uplift
and condensation of moist air masses is assumed to be the dominant
precipitation formation process in central Patagonia. (iii) The atmospheric
drying ratio (DR) derived from observed isotope data is a valid measure for
the cross-mountain fractionation of the WVF. Based on this assumption, the
proposed methods are constrained by the DR to accurately reproduce the
fraction of the water vapour flux removed by orographic precipitation.</p>
      <p id="d1e1975">After a description of the methods (Sect. 2), the moisture transport and its
role on local precipitation formation in southern South America is explored
in more detail (Sect. 3.1). The next chapter (Sect. 4) begins with the
assessment of the precipitation estimates (Sect. 4.1) and discusses its
implications for the surface mass balance of the Patagonian Icefields (Sect. 4.2). We will further link the surface mass balance to the local
hydrological cycle to understand the long-term evolution of glaciers in this
region (Sect. 4.3). Following this section, the limitation and uncertainty of
the proposed approach is discussed (Sect. 4.4). The last section provides a
conclusion of the main findings.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methodology</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>DR scaling (DRS)</title>
      <?pagebreak page2006?><p id="d1e1993">To provide a first assessment of the magnitude of precipitation, mean
precipitation is estimated along the western slopes of the Andes
(45–52<inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and 73–76<inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) using a
simple DR scaling (DRS). The DR in Patagonia, defined as the fraction of the
WVF removed by orographic precipitation, is known to be the highest
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>–0.5) worldwide (Mayr et al., 2018;
Smith and Evans, 2007). The ratio is a characteristic measure for mountain
ranges and is independent of the incoming WVF. If the WVF and the DR are
known, one can estimate the mean homogeneous (uniform) precipitation amount.
To add altitude-dependent precipitation variability, the amount was
redistributed mass consistently by optimizing the vertical precipitation
gradient using a Newton–Raphson algorithm (Press et al., 2007).
The lapse-rate optimization finds the roots of the function
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M117" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="-0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="-0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="-0.125em"/><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:munder><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi>A</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the study domain area, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M120" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m) is the background
precipitation at sea level, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (m m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the precipitation
gradient and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (m) is the terrain height. The first term on the right represents
the potential precipitation resulting from the WVF, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), and the given DR, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (–). The second term is the
precipitation integrated over the domain <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mi>D</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> resulting from the linear
interpolation. This interpolation via lapse rate converts the entire
specified WVF fraction into precipitation regardless of the saturation vapour
deficit of the impinging air masses. However, orographic precipitation can
only occur when the terrain-forced uplift and cooling of air masses lead to
water vapour condensation. To take this condition into account, only lower-tropospheric (below 950 hPa) air masses are considered with a relative
humidity equal to or exceeding 90 % (Jarosch et al., 2012;
Weidemann et al., 2013). The DRS provides a first-order approximation but
neglects heterogeneity and important processes such as airflow dynamics and
cloud physics.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Linear orographic precipitation model (OPM)</title>
      <p id="d1e2209">To account for these aspects, a set of realistic and extreme ensemble
experiments has been designed using a linear orographic precipitation model
(OPM), which represents many processes, such as condensation and hydrometeor
conversion, using relatively simple formulations for airflow dynamics and
cloud physics (e.g.
Garreaud et al., 2016; Jarosch et al., 2012; Smith and Barstad, 2004; Smith
and Evans, 2007; Weidemann et al., 2018a). The model builds upon the
original formulation of the linear orographic precipitation model (Barstad and Smith, 2005; Smith and
Barstad, 2004), including a correction of the WVF downstream (Smith and Evans, 2007) and an
optimization to enforce the model towards a given drying ratio. It solves
two steady-state advection equations describing the change in the vertically
integrated cloud water density and hydrometeors density due to advection,
condensation of water vapour by terrain-forced uplift, conversion from cloud
water to hydrometeors and hydrometeor fallout. Mountain wave theory allows
for the decay of the vertical velocity caused by tilting mountain waves and
consequently constrains the water vapour condensation rate. Assuming
horizontal uniform background flow and properties (e.g. atmospheric
stability), the orographic precipitation can be represented by a transfer
function of
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M129" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>m</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (–) is the uplift sensitivity factor, which relates
the vertical air motion to the condensation rate; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the imaginary unit;
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the intrinsic frequency, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mi>l</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are the horizontal
wavenumbers; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the Fourier transform of the
terrain; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the vertical wavenumber; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m) is the water
vapour scale height; and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (s)
are the timescales for the conversion from cloud water to hydrometeors and
their precipitation. The airflow dynamics is represented by the vertical
wavenumber <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mi>m</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is a function of the atmospheric stratification
represented by the moist Brunt–Väisälä frequency
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Thus, the parsimonious model
contains five parameters: the uplift sensitivity factor <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
the moist buoyancy frequency <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the water vapour
scale height <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the condensation and fallout timescales
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The mean horizontal wind
velocities (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the parameters <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are calculated from 6-hourly ERA-Interim (ECMWF Reanalysis)
fields (2010–2016) below the 500 hPa geopotential level off Patagonia's western
coast between 48 and 52<inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S and 75 and 78<inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W (Fig. 1, D1; Smith and Barstad, 2004). Contrary to most other studies, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is directly derived from
the incoming WVF, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), using
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>,
where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>q</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (kg kg<inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) is the total mixing ratio and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ρ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) the air density. The timescales of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">f</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">850</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s are fixed for all
experiments, which are realistic values for the southern Andes and produce
remarkable similar results to numerical models (Garreaud
et al., 2016; Smith and Evans, 2007). The total precipitation field in
physical space,
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M164" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo movablelimits="false">max⁡</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mspace width="-0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace width="-0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="-0.125em"/><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="-0.125em"/><mml:mspace width="-0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mo movablelimits="false">∫</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>y</mml:mi><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          is finally obtained by double Fourier transform Eq. (2) and adding the
synoptic-scale background precipitation <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m) followed by the
truncation of negative values. For consistency, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is calculated
by removing the orographic component from the ERA-Interim precipitation
field (for
details see Dee et al., 2011, and Jarosch et al., 2012). To enforce the
model towards a given drying ratio <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is scaled by a
constant so that the calculated DR corresponds to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>D</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The model is
solved on a 90 m Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) dataset, resampled at 1 km resolution
(Jarvis et al., 2008).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Experiments</title>
      <?pagebreak page2007?><p id="d1e2868">Within the scope of this study, two experiments each were performed with the
DRS and the OPM. In the first experiment it was tested whether a combination
of “realistic” atmospheric environmental conditions (derived from the
reanalysis data), observed DR of 0.45 (Mayr et al., 2018) and WVF, provide
the basis to sustain the precipitation estimates of previous studies. The
second experiment delivers an “extreme” scenario by setting the DR to a
higher value of 0.6. In this OPM experiment, the buoyancy sensitivity factor
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and the moisture stability frequency (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.007</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) were also set to their 98th percentile values.
The extreme scenario thus represents atmospheric conditions that exist in
nature, but whose occurrence is extremely rare. To obtain an upper limit of
the precipitation potential, we assume that this atmospheric condition is
present every day. Ensemble experiments were created with the OPM for both
scenarios. Each ensemble comprises 40 ensemble members. The ensemble members
consider the uncertainty of the initial state in wind direction and moisture
content by randomly perturbing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (5 %), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (5 %) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (10 %)
around their mean value. From here on the realistic simulations are marked
with the subscript 0.45 (DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>), while the
extreme simulations are marked with the subscript 0.60 (DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and
OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Atmospheric simulations using the Weather Research and Forecast (WRF) model</title>
      <p id="d1e2983">To analyse the influence of nonlinear-flow regimes on precipitation
patterns, atmospheric simulations were performed with the Weather Research
and Forecast (WRF) model, version 3.8.1. The model was configured with three
one-way nested domains with a horizontal resolution of 12.5 km, 2.5 km and
500 m, which were centred over the Southern Patagonian Icefields. The model
configuration and parameterizations used in this study are shown in Table S4 in the Supplement. To achieve the required resolution in the inner domain, the standard
terrain data were replaced by NASA Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM)
data
(<uri>https://cgiarcsi.community/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-database-v4-1</uri>, last access: 16 November 2016).
Furthermore, the land use classification was updated with the ESA CCI (Climate Change Initiative) dataset (<uri>https://www.esa-landcover-cci.org</uri>, last access: 8 February 2018). This way the glacier outlines could
be improved significantly. The outermost domain was driven at its lateral
boundaries by the ERA-Interim reanalysis dataset with a spatial resolution
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.75</mml:mn><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in longitude and latitude and a
time interval of 6 h. With the above setup, individual events were
calculated with WRF. Each simulation had a spin-up of at least 12 h.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Moisture transport</title>
      <p id="d1e3028">Observations of IWV and WVF are sparse in South America and limits the
analysis of the moisture transport to a few locations (see Fig. 2). The only
available soundings for the region are Puerto Montt (41.4347<inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S,
73.0975<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) on the Pacific coast and Punta Arenas
(53.0033<inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 70.8450<inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W) located at the Strait of
Magellan (Durre et al., 2006). Along the coast at the latitude of Puerto
Montt, the average WVF in the period 1990–2017 was about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">165.52</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">48.51</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. Landfalling atmospheric rivers temporarily amplify
the WVF by more than 400 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. There is also clear evidence
that enhanced atmospheric circulation during strong El Niño events
(Ocean Niño Index <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) increase the moisture flux over several months (see Fig. 2; e.g.
1997/98). The El Niño signal is less pronounced in Punta Arenas. The
atmospheric soundings show opposite linear long-term WVF trends over the
period 1990–2016 with a significant (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) decrease of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.46</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.70</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %) per decade in Puerto Montt and a
significant (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) positive trend of 8.79 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(5.11 %) per decade in Punta Arenas (see Fig. 2). However,
change-point analysis shows that the observed WVF trend in Punta Arenas is
not constant over time but has shown significant abrupt shifts in the past
that characterize the transition of water-vapour-rich and water-vapour-poor periods
(Killick et al., 2012). A significant transition
took place in 2006, which marks the beginning of a relatively water-vapour-rich
period (Fig. 2).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3234">Monthly WVF anomalies in Puerto Montt <bold>(a)</bold> and Punta Arenas <bold>(b)</bold>. Shown are the running 3-month mean WVF anomalies for the
atmospheric soundings and the nearest ERA-Interim grid point from 1990 to 2016.
The blue shaded areas indicate very strong El Niño events
(ONI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The horizontal blue lines in panel <bold>(b)</bold> show the mean
WVF over water-vapour-rich and water-vapour-poor phases.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=355.659449pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3262">The ERA-Interim data, on which the analysis is based, reflect the
interannual WVF variability and overall trend of the soundings but slightly
overestimates the rate of change in Puerto Montt (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.94</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
per decade; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.43</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % per decade) and underestimates the observed
trend in Punta Arenas (4.10 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> per decade; 2.70 %
per decade). The mean WVF at both sites is weaker than the observed
moisture transport. In Puerto Montt, the WVF is about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">111.54</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">34.40</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is almost 30 % less than the estimate from the
atmospheric sounding. The differences between observed WVF (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">172.12</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">54.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and reanalysis data (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">152.08</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">57.08</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) are much lower in Punta Arenas. It is evident from the
soundings that ERA-Interim data are too dry (according to the IWV) in the
vicinity of Puerto Montt (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.23</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">14.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.01</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and
slightly too wet in the south (0.48 mm, 4.6 %, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; see Fig. S2 and Table S2). The comparison with atmospheric water vapour data obtained
by the Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS) over the ocean
confirms the north–south pattern (Wentz et al., 1998; see
Fig. S4). While IWV differences between ERA-Interim
data and SSMIS south of 45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S are on average smaller than 0.16 mm
(1.1 %), larger deficits are apparent north of 45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> mm).</p>
      <p id="d1e3519">Based on the comparison with the atmospheric soundings and SSMIS
observation, ERA-Interim underestimates the IWV along the western coast of
Patagonia (D1 in Fig. 1), where the corresponding parameters for the
assessment were calculated, by less than 5 %. However, comparison with
the soundings suggests that the WVF in the ERA-Interim data along the western
coast is weaker by 10 % to 20 % due to uncertainties in moisture advection. In
the following analysis, a WVF bias of 10 % is assumed and corrected
accordingly.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Physical constraints on local precipitation</title>
      <?pagebreak page2008?><p id="d1e3530">To obtain the plausible range of precipitation amounts in central Patagonia,
the DRS and the OPM are driven by the ERA-Interim data for the period
2010–2016. The DRS is primarily intended to gain fundamental insights into
the order of magnitude of precipitation. As the WVF and the DR (here we use
0.45) are known from ERA-Interim data and isotope observations (Dee
et al., 2011; Langhamer et al., 2018; Mayr et al., 2018; Smith and Evans,
2007), one can estimate the mean homogeneous (uniform) precipitation amount
using Eq. (1). The mean precipitation at sea level, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m), was taken
from the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission off the shore of the
Chilean coast (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Solving the optimization
problem (see Eq. 1) resulted in a vertical precipitation gradient of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.056</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which is slightly higher than the
previously reported lapse rate of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (Schaefer et al., 2013, 2015).
Averaged over the SPI and NPI, this approach produces values of 4.67 and 4.94 m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively (see Fig. 1 and Table 1). The
highest precipitation amounts are reached at the highest peaks on the NPI
with up to 9.68 m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. To achieve a DR of 0.6, a precipitation
gradient of 0.12 % is required. Such a strong gradient would lead to
average precipitation amount of 8.45 and 9.16 m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>on the
SPI and NPI with maximum values of more than 20 m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e3661">Results of the OPM ensemble experiments. Mean precipitation fields
(2010–2016) simulated by the OPM using <bold>(a)</bold> the “realistic” (OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>)
parameter setup and <bold>(b)</bold> the “extreme” (OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) parameter setup using
a DR of 0.6 and the 98th percentile values for the uplift sensitivity factor
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>C</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">w</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.004</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and moist stability frequency (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.007</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e3737">To further include dynamical airflow processes in the estimation, albeit in
simplified form, we use the OPM. The OPM is applied to a large domain (Fig. 1, D2) to avoid spurious numerical artefacts. The ensemble mean of the
OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (realistic) experiment gives an average precipitation amount of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.06</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.51</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> over the SPI and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.38</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.59</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
over the NPI (Table 1, Fig. 3), indicating that the WVF can sustain
relatively high mean precipitation amounts in Patagonia. However,
precipitation estimates are up to 38 % lower than estimates from previous
numerical studies (Escobar,
1992; Lenaerts et al., 2014; Mernild et al., 2017; Schaefer et al., 2013,
2015; Schwikowski et al., 2006). The highest mean amounts are found in the
highest regions on the western slopes of the icefields (SPI: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.93</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; NPI: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.83</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and at the southernmost
end of the SPI. The eastern slopes receive considerably less precipitation
(SPI: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.04</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.42</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; NPI: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.37</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p>
      <p id="d1e3896">The OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> (extreme) experiment shows higher averaged precipitation
amounts of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.99</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.59</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at
the SPI and NPI, respectively (Fig. 3). The combination of short timescales, a large drying ratio, a strong moist stability frequency and a large
uplift sensitivity factor increases the total precipitation and enhances the
cross-mountain fractionation. Despite the precipitation-enhancing parameter
choices, the maximum precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)
represents a reduction of up to 60 % compared to other numerical studies (Lenaerts et al., 2014;
Schaefer et al., 2013, 2015).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Assessment of the precipitation estimates</title>
      <p id="d1e3998">Comparison with in situ observations from the Dirección General de Aguas
(DGA; Chile) indicates that the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> model slightly overestimates
precipitation on the eastern (downwind) side by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.29</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.37</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (see Fig. 5 and Table S3). Larger deviations (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.07</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) occur at the stations located at the foot of the western slope of
the Patagonian Icefields. The overestimation is the result of the rapid
increase in model terrain elevation and the absence of nonlinear processes
in the OPM (see Sect. 4.4). Please note that this number is somehow
misleading, as only three stations are<?pagebreak page2009?> available west of the icefields.
However, on contrary to the simple DR scaling, the OPM approach captures the
observed quick drop in precipitation from west to east (see Fig. 4). Taking
all stations into account, the bias between the observations and simulation
is about 0.42 m with a root mean squared error (RMSE) of 0.70 m. If the
three stations west of the main ridge (Amalia, Puerto Eden and San Rafael glacier) are ignored, the bias is reduced to 0.27 m with an RMSE of 0.44 m. In
the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> experiments, the bias (0.99 m) is significantly higher,
indicating that the simulations are much more humid than the observations.
The high coefficients of determination suggest that the annual variability
is well represented in the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> as well as in the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
experiments. In summary, both the temporal variability and the sharp spatial
differentiation of precipitation are well represented by the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
experiment. The OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> result is therefore consistent with the in situ
observations, while the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> result is too wet. It confirms the
findings from the isotope measurements that the fractionation of the WVF is
in the range of 0.45 (Mayr et al., 2018).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e4115">Differences between the OPM ensemble experiments and the
DR scaling approach. Panel <bold>(a)</bold> shows the differences (m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) between
the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> experiment. Similarly, panel <bold>(b)</bold> shows the
differences between OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> and DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e4181">Comparison of measured and simulated precipitation for the period
2010–2016. The observations were made by the weather station network of the
Dirección Meteorológica de Chile (DMC) and the Dirección General
de Aguas (DGA). The only three stations located west of the Patagonian
Icefield are labelled.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page2010?><p id="d1e4191">Studies come to very different precipitation totals on the main ridge of the
Andes and often diverge even further when it comes to maximum precipitation.
The maximum precipitation amount of the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> experiment
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.92</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), found on the SPI plateau, is
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %–70 % lower than previously simulated maxima (Lenaerts et al., 2014;
Schaefer et al., 2013, 2015) and accumulation rates derived from an ice core (Shiraiwa et al., 2002). The values reported by these studies
cannot even be achieved by the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> experiment, which is still 20 %–60 % lower (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Please note that a snow / rain ratio of 0.55 and a fresh-snow density of 250 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> would
still result in fresh-snow accumulation of more than 25 m. The large
ensemble spread in maximum values indicates that precipitation is very
sensitive to small uncertainties in ambient flow conditions (see Table 1).
Even though the uncertainty in the background flow regime and dynamics may
also be a possible origin of the extreme precipitation predicted by the
mesoscale models, the responsible mechanisms explaining the significant
differences remain unclear. It is likely that one reason is the model
parameterization of processes. Some microphysical parameterization schemes
are more “graupel-friendly” than others, which can lead to strong
hydrometeor formation. Since the choice of parameterization combinations can
lead to very different results, each model must be examined individually.
The sources are manifold and can only be speculative in the context of this
study. Given the scarcity of data, especially at higher altitudes, extreme
values are difficult to assess. Presumably, the estimated maxima are
overestimated due to the extreme parameter choice and to the exclusion of
nonlinear effects given the linear nature of the orographic model (see
Sect. 4.4).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Consequences of revised precipitation estimates on the surface mass
balance of the Patagonian Icefields</title>
      <p id="d1e4291">These revised precipitation estimates have critical implications for our
current understanding of the response of Patagonia's glaciers to climate
change. Recent numerical studies (Mernild et al., 2017;
Schaefer et al., 2015) suggest a mean annual surface mass gain of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.78</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.36</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m to 2.24 m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for the SPI over recent decades,
while surface mass balance (SMB) estimates for the NPI range between
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.16</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.73</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.14</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.49</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>.
However, these assessments used mean precipitation rates well above (40 %–65 %) the plausible range presented in this study.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e4358">Relation between the annual specific accumulation and surface mass
balance over the SPI <bold>(a)</bold> and NPI <bold>(b)</bold>. The dark blue dots show the annual SMB
values from 1975 to 2000 for the SPI and NPI estimated by Schaefer et al. (2013, 2015). The plot also contains the
multi-year mean values of Schaefer et al. (2013, 2015),
Mernild et al. (2017), and the SMB values derived from this study (labelled
dots). The dashed grey horizontal lines show the geodetic mass balances
obtained from radar interferometry (Braun et al., 2019). The uncertainty of
the individual studies is shown on the right side.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page2011?><p id="d1e4373">To quantify the effect of the revised precipitation values on the SMB of the
SPI, we use the significant linear relation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.96</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) between annual snow accumulation and SMB derived from Schaefer et
al. (2015) (see Fig. 6),
given by SMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.258</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.935</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m) is the mean solid
precipitation. The robustness of this relationship is indirectly proven by
the study of Mernild et al. (2017), which is very close
to the linear fitting line. Taking into account the proposed solid-to-total-precipitation ratio of 0.596 (Schaefer
et al., 2015), the mean solid precipitation is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.02</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.30</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e.
(OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.57</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m. w.e. (OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) for the SPI.
Based on this assumption, the revised accumulation values would result in a
mean SMB (2010–2016) between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.56</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.82</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.14</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.39</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.95</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) on the SPI
(Fig. 6). It appears that all mean SMB estimates are between the limits of
the DRS values (DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.43</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>; DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>: 1.79 m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Taking account of the recent geodetic mass balance observations
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.941</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.19</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e.; Malz et al., 2018), the mean mass
loss due to calving ranges between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m. w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20.95</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.94</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.58</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m. w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.18</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The mean mass balance
and calving flows derived here are subject to approach-related uncertainties
and may deviate strongly from the values of individual years. A recently
published study showed that calving fluxes at Jorge Montt glacier fluctuated
between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.16</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.81</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the years 2012–2018 (Bown et al., 2019). Single
extreme events cannot be represented with the approach presented here, since
the mean SMB is used together with the geodetic mass balance observations,
which also constitutes an integrated value.</p>
      <?pagebreak page2012?><p id="d1e4868">The same approach is applied to the NPI to highlight the sensitivity of the
SMB to the revised precipitation values. Using the accumulation and SMB data
from Schaefer et al. (2013), the linear relationship of SMB <inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.375</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">S</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.713</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> between snow accumulation and SMB is obtained. Here we use the
same solid-to-total-precipitation ratio, resulting in snow precipitation of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.20</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.35</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. (OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.61</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.38</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m. w.e.
(OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) for the NPI. When these values are inserted into the linear
equation, the mean SMB is <inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.72</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.72</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.68</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.30</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.72</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>). Again, the
SMBs derived from the two DRS experiments define the outer limits between
which all SMB estimates are located (DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.66</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>;
DRS<inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.60</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>: 1.79 m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Comparing the OPM experiments with the
geodetic mass balances (Braun et al.,
2019) reveals that the SMB of the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula> experiment is lower than the
observation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.90</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.07</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). This is an unphysical
result which might have two main reasons: (i) the revised precipitation
estimates are too low, or (ii) the linear relationship between SMB and snow
precipitation is unreliable. The first reason is difficult to verify, but
the comparison of the experiments with the stations consistently shows a
positive bias. This reduces the probability that the experiments are too
dry. The second argument is supported by the fact that the relationship
between SMB and snow accumulation of Mernild et al. (2017) does not coincide
with that of Schaefer et al. (2013). The former shows more positive SMB values for
the same accumulation (see Fig. 6). Let us assume for the sake of simplicity
that there is a constant offset of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.84</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> according to the
difference between the value provided by Mernild et al. (2017) and the
linear approximation. The corrected SMB estimates of the OPM<inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:math></inline-formula>
experiment would be shifted towards the range of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.46</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> and therefore be more positive than the geodetic mass balance. The
corresponding mass loss by calving would be finally on the order of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.44</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.55</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.27</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.84</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>).
This is a pure thought experiment, and the numbers can only serve as orders
of magnitude.</p>
      <p id="d1e5293">Furthermore, an invariant and homogeneous liquid-to-solid-precipitation
ratio and a universal relationship between annual precipitation sums and SMB
has been assumed. Recently published studies indicate that the solid-to-liquid-precipitation ratio varies locally (Bravo et al., 2019). Together
with the snowdrift effect, which is also not considered here, this leads to
large uncertainties in the mass change estimates (e.g. Sauter et al., 2013). However,
this analysis clearly shows how sensitive the estimation of SMB and calving
rates react to precipitation uncertainties.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Constrains of the hydrological cycle on the SMB</title>
      <p id="d1e5304">Given the strong link between the glacier SMB and the local hydrological cycle,
the long-term SMB evolution scales with the strength of the WVF, which is,
in turn projected to increase in a warming climate. The WVF sensitivity
along Patagonia's western coast (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S) is on the
order of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> %
per decade) as a result of the strengthening of the westerlies
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and increase in IWV (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) south of 45<inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S. The latter is weaker than the
change in global-mean IWV which scales according to the Clausius–Clapeyron
relation (7 % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) but is consistent with the assumption that
increased latent heat flux is compensated by the sensible heat flux (Held et al., 2006; Schneider et
al., 2010). The observed zonal-wind trend is associated with a bias towards
a more positive Southern Annular Mode (Garreaud
et al., 2013; Marshall et al., 2017; Thompson and Solomon, 2002).</p>
      <p id="d1e5423">The change of the WVF leads to stronger moisture flux convergence along the
coastal zone west of the Andes main ridge. Ignoring the fact that the
solid–liquid ratio changes, which appears to be a reasonable assumption,
since temperature changes in the lower troposphere are negligible
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mo lspace="0mm">∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.01 K per decade), a mean mass gain of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.57</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.06</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. per degree warming (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.11</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.02</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. per decade) is expected
over the SPI. This rate is consistent with other studies (Mernild et al., 2017). Thus, although the precipitation
values presented here indicate that the present-day SMB of the Patagonian
Icefields is likely not as positive as suggested by previous studies, the SMB
can be expected to show an increasing trend under continued warming
conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS4">
  <label>4.4</label><title>Limitations and nonlinearities</title>
      <p id="d1e5465">Given the linear nature of the approach used, the knowledge gained must be
critically assessed and is only valid under certain conditions. This linear
assumption requires a stably stratified atmospheric flow, more precisely one that is
given by a positive moist buoyancy frequency. During the study period from
2010 to 2016, the condition was fulfilled in more than 99 % of all days.
As a part of this assumption a linear mountain flow response is required to
guarantee that the airflow crosses the mountain range. To ensure a linear-flow regime, the non-dimensional mountain height
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>N</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mi>U</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> must be
smaller than one, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m) is the mean barrier height.
Assuming a mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2200</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m, the conditions
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is fulfilled in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">82</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % of all
considered cases (see Fig. S5). In the remaining cases (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the Andes block the atmospheric flow, and a northerly low-level
barrier jet forms along the western slope, parallel to the main ridge (Barrett
et al., 2009; Falvey and Garreaud, 2007; Garreaud and Muñoz, 2005; Viale
and Garreaud, 2015; see Fig. 7). The low-level jet constitutes an effective
barrier to the flow that extends upwind, greatly reducing the uplift motions
and thus the condensation of water vapour along the western slopes. The shift in
the vertical uplift enhances precipitation upstream of the Andes, while
reducing precipitation at the slopes. The effect of blocking is clearly
evident in the precipitation fields of high-resolution (500 m) atmospheric
simulations of single events using the Weather Research and Forecast (WRF)
model (see Fig. 8 and Table S4). Two water-vapour-rich events were chosen to
illustrate the influence of the flow regime on the spatial distribution of
precipitation. While the linear-flow regime has a pronounced precipitation
maximum on the slopes, flow blocking shifts the precipitation far upstream
(600–700 km), leading to a more homogeneous pattern.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e5568">Schematic illustration of the interaction between the atmospheric
air flow and the Andes. <bold>(a)</bold> Linear mountain flow response
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) leads to strong uplift and precipitation along the
western slopes. <bold>(b)</bold> The air flow is blocked by the topography (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>H</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>≥</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and the resulting pressure gradient (indicated by the red
circle) at the western slope slows down the upstream flow. The imbalance
between the large-scale pressure gradient and Coriolis force leads to a
northerly low-level jet, which reduces and shifts the uplift motions
upstream. This mechanism enhances precipitation in the Precordillera range,
while reducing precipitation at the western slopes of the Andes.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=241.848425pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e5615">Total precipitation sums (3 d) over the SPI and NPI from WRF
for different flow regimes. <bold>(a)</bold> Nonlinear-flow response with enhanced
precipitation in the Precordillera range and <bold>(b)</bold> linear-flow response with
strong localized precipitation along the western slopes of the Andes.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/24/2003/2020/hess-24-2003-2020-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e5631">Upstream precipitation can be further enhanced by microphysical processes
such as the seeder–feeder mechanism<?pagebreak page2013?> and rapid warm-air autoconversion.
Studies have shown that these processes can lead to higher rain
accumulations upstream when fronts and embedded atmospheric rivers intersect
the western coast of central Chile (Garreaud
et al., 2016; Massmann et al., 2017; Viale et al., 2013; Viale and Garreaud,
2015). The lifting of moist air masses upstream produces mid-tropospheric
stratiform clouds (seeder), which can be strong enough to produce
snow or graupel aloft and light precipitation in the pre-frontal region. If the
frontal system is slowed down by blocking, low-level convergence enhances in
the area of the narrow cold-frontal rainband and fuels the updrafts. The
enhanced updrafts facilitate the development of low-level clouds by
collision coalescence between supercooled droplets. When the narrow cold
frontal rainband propagates further east, it triggers the seeder–feeder
mechanism, and low-tropospheric clouds are seeded by the precipitation that
is formed by mid-tropospheric clouds aloft. The associated rapid
transformation of cloud water into hydrometeors and increased hydrometeor
sizes are absent in the approach presented. Here, the process is treated
simplistically by the choice of short timescales and by constraining the
synoptic-scale uplift (background precipitation). This solution most likely
leads to (i) an overestimation of precipitation on the western slopes of the
SPI and (ii) an underestimation of precipitation in the Precordillera zone
but (iii) satisfies the given DR constraint. Compliance with the DR
criterion is the necessary condition to verify the plausibility of
precipitation estimates.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>5</label><title>Conclusion</title>
      <p id="d1e5643">The present study has shown on the basis of simple physical arguments and a
linear model that it is very unlikely that the moisture flux from the
Pacific will be sufficient to sustain the reported extreme mean
precipitation amounts for Patagonia. While the approaches and assumptions
employed in this study contain substantial uncertainties, precipitation
estimates using other parameter combinations fall within the range between
the two proposed scenarios. Hence, this study offers a plausible range of
precipitation estimates based on clearly defined assumptions: (i) the
orographically induced precipitation is proportional to the incoming WVF,
(ii) the terrain-forced uplift and condensation of moist air masses is
assumed to be the dominant precipitation formation process in central
Patagonia, and (iii) the atmospheric drying ratio (DR) derived from observed
isotope data is a valid measure for the cross-mountain fractionation of the
WVF. According to these assumptions, the icefield-wide precipitation
averages are likely to fall within <inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.06</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.51</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.99</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.59</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on the SPI and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.38</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.59</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.09</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> on the NPI. The values
within these ranges are about 40 %–65 % lower than previously assumed.
Extreme precipitation in wind-exposed regions is in the range of
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.58</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, up to 60 % lower than estimated by other
numerical studies (Lenaerts et al., 2014;
Schaefer et al., 2013, 2015). It should also be noted that processes such as
snowdrift and nonlinear effects have not been taken into account, so the
actual accumulation rates are probably still<?pagebreak page2014?> below these estimates. This
result makes it very unlikely that Patagonia is the wettest place on Earth.
More importantly, the drier hydroclimatic condition represents a major
constraint for the Patagonian Icefields and reduces the precipitation
contribution to the glacier mass balance. The missing contribution is
evident in the surface mass balance. According to the results, the average
SMB (2010–2016) was between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.56</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.82</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.14</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.39</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.95</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.45</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) on the SPI in the last decades. The
mass loss due to calving ranging between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.64</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
(<inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20.95</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.94</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.8</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.58</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">11.18</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8.10</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). On the NPI the SMB was
more negative with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.72</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.52</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.72</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.68</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.30</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.72</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.48</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). The calving flux was estimated to be on the order
of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.44</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.55</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.27</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2.84</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> km<inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> yr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). However, this number is very uncertain. Over the long term, the
regional precipitation is likely to increase by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % per
degree warming (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % per decade) in response to
stronger moisture flux. Most of the change is related to a strengthening of
the westerlies (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">20</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>), while only a minor
contribution comes from an increase in IWV (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> % K<inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>). Assuming that the liquid-to-solid-precipitation ratio and the
relationship between annual precipitation sum and SMB are universal and
valid for the next decades, the WVF changes would result in a glacier
surface mass gain of about <inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.57</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.06</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> m w.e. per degree warming on the
SPI. This positive trend contradicts the recently published geodetic mass
balance observations (Malz et al., 2018) which detected quick
glacier recessions in these regions. The observed retreat is significantly
stronger than the gain in ice mass, implying that the ice mass budget is
partially decoupled from the climate signal and primarily caused by dynamic
adjustments of tidewater and lake-calving glaciers. The pronounced dynamic
glacier response emphasizes that ice dynamic processes need to be given more
prominence in order to quantify the response of the Patagonian glaciers to
climate change and their contribution to future sea-level rise. While the
change in ice masses is a vivid example of the response to reduced
precipitation, it also opens new perspectives for future studies on
environmental change in Patagonia and can also help reduce uncertainties in
the quantification of other precipitation-driven environmental phenomena.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e6274">Data were obtained from the European Centre
for Medium-Range Forecast (ECMWF, 2018), National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA; NASA/CIGRA, 2018), and
Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA; NOAA, 2017a) from the National Centers for
Environmental Information (NCEI). SSM/I and SSMIS data are produced by
Remote Sensing Systems. Data are available at <uri>http://www.remss.com/missions/ssmi</uri> (NOAA, 2017b).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e6280">The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2003-2020-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2003-2020-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e6289">The author declares that there is no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e6295">I would like to thank Manuel Gebetsberger, Emily Collier, Thomas Mölg and Nicolas Cullen for the discussion and support. The simulations
were calculated on the High-Performance Cluster (HPC) at the Regional
Computation Center (RRZE) of the University of Erlangen-Nürnberg.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e6300">This research has been supported by the German Research Foundation (DFG) (grant no. SA 2339/4-1).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e6306">This paper was edited by Bettina Schaefli and reviewed by Claudio Bravo and Marius Schaefer.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Aguirre, F., Carrasco, J., Sauter, T., Schneider, C., Gaete, K. R., Garin,
E., Adaros, R., Jaña, R. A., and Casassa, G.: Snow cover change as a
climate indicator in Brunswick Peninsula, Patagonia, Front. Earth Sci., 6,
130,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00130" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2018.00130</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Aracena, C., Lange, C. B., Iriarte, J. L., Rebolledo, L., and Pantoja, S.:
Latitudinal patterns of export production recorded in surface sediments of
the Chilean Patagonian fjords (41–55<inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S) as a response to water column
productivity, Cont. Shelf Res., 31, 340–355, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Aravena, J. C. and Luckman, B. H.: Spatio-temporal rainfall patterns in
Southern South America, Int. J. Climatol., 29, 2106–2120, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1761" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.1761</ext-link>,
2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Barrett, B. S., Garreaud, R., and Falvey, M.: Effect of the Andes Cordillera
on Precipitation from a Midlatitude Cold Front, Mon. Weather Rev., 137,
3092–3109, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2881.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009MWR2881.1</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Barstad, I. and Smith, R. B.: Evaluation of an orographic precipitation
model, J. Hydrometeorol., 6, 85–99, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-404.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM-404.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bown, F., Rivera, A., Pętlicki, M., Bravo, C., Oberreuter, J., and
Moffat, C.: Recent ice dynamics and mass balance of Jorge Montt Glacier,
Southern Patagonia Icefield, J. Glaciol., 65, 732–744,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2019.47" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1017/jog.2019.47</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Braun, M. H., Malz, P., Sommer, C., Farías-Barahona, D., Sauter, T.,
Casassa, G., Soruco, A., Skvarca, P., and Seehaus, T. C.: Constraining
glacier elevation and mass changes in South America, Nat. Clim. Chang.,
9, 130–136, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0375-7" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41558-018-0375-7</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page2015?><ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Bravo, C., Bozkurt, D., Gonzalez-Reyes, Á., Quincey, D. J., Ross, A. N.,
Farías-Barahona, D., and Rojas, M.: Assessing Snow Accumulation Patterns
and Changes on the Patagonian Icefields, Front. Environ. Sci., 7, 30,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00030" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/fenvs.2019.00030</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P.,
Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N.,
Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S.
B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P.,
Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., Mcnally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M.,
Morcrette, J. J., Park, B. K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C.,
Thépaut, J. N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration
and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
137, 553–597, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.828</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Durre, I., Vose, R. S., and Wuertz, D. B.: Overview of the integrated global
radiosonde archive, J. Climate, 19, 53–68, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3594.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI3594.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Escobar, F.: Water balance in the Patagonia Icefield, Glaciol. Res. Patagon.,
1990, 109–119, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF): ERA-Interim data,
available at: <uri>https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/datasets/reanalysis-datasets/era-interim</uri>,
last access: 22 February 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Falvey, M. and Garreaud, R.: Wintertime Precipitation Episodes in Central
Chile: Associated Meteorological Conditions and Orographic Influences, J.
Hydrometeorol., 8, 171–193, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM562.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM562.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Foresta, L., Gourmelen, N., Weissgerber, F., Nienow, P., Williams, J. J.,
Shepherd, A., Drinkwater, M. R., and Plummer, S.: Heterogeneous and rapid ice
loss over the Patagonian Ice Fields revealed by CryoSat-2 swath radar
altimetry, Remote Sens. Environ., 211, 441–455, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garreaud, R. D.: Precipitation and circulation covariability in the
extratropics, J. Climate, 20, 4789–4797, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4257.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI4257.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garreaud, R. D.: The Andes climate and weather, Adv. Geosci., 22, 3–11, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-22-3-2009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/adgeo-22-3-2009</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garreaud, R. D. and Muñoz, R. C.: The Low-Level Jet off the West Coast
of Subtropical South America: Structure and Variability, Mon. Weather Rev.,
133, 2246–2261, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3074.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR3074.1</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garreaud, R. D., Lopez, P., Minvielle, M., and Rojas, M.: Large-scale control
on the Patagonian climate, J. Climate, 26, 215–230,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00001.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00001.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Garreaud, R., Falvey, M., Montecinos, A., Garreaud, R., Falvey, M., and
Montecinos, A.: Orographic Precipitation in Coastal Southern Chile: Mean
Distribution, Temporal Variability, and Linear Contribution, J.
Hydrometeorol., 17, 1185–1202, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0170.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM-D-15-0170.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Held, I. M., Soden, B. J., Held, I. M., and Soden, B. J.: Robust Responses of
the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming, J. Climate, 19, 5686–5699,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3990.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI3990.1</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jarosch, A. H., Anslow, F. S., and Clarke, G. K. C.: High-resolution
precipitation and temperature downscaling for glacier models, Clim. Dynam.,
38, 391–409, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0949-1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-010-0949-1</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Jarvis, A., Reuter, H. I., Nelson, A., and Guevara, E.: Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 4, available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database, available at: <uri>https://cgiarcsi.community/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-database-v4-1</uri>
(last access: 16 November 2016), 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Jobbágy, E. G., Sala, O. E., and Paruelo, J. M.: Patterns and controls of
primary production in the Patagonian steppe: a remote sensing approach,
Ecology, 83, 307–319, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Killick, R., Fearnhead, P., and Eckley, I. A.: Optimal detection of
changepoints with a linear computational cost, J. Am. Stat. Assoc.,
107, 1590–1598, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2012.737745" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1080/01621459.2012.737745</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Landaeta, M. F., López, G., Suárez-Donoso, N., Bustos, C. A.,
Balbontiín, F., and Balbontín, F.: Larval fish distribution, growth
and feeding in Patagonian fjords: potential effects of freshwater discharge,
Environ. Biol. Fish., 93, 73–87, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-011-9891-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10641-011-9891-2</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Langhamer, L., Sauter, T., and Mayr, G. J.: Lagrangian Detection of Moisture
Sources for the Southern Patagonia Icefield (1979–2017), Front. Earth Sci.,
6, 219, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00219" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2018.00219</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Lenaerts, J. T. M., Van Den Broeke, M. R., van Wessem, J. M., van de Berg,
W. J., van Meijgaard, E., van Ulft, L. H., Schaefer, M., and Bilt, D.:
Extreme precipitation and climate gradients in Patagonia revealed by
high-resolution regional atmospheric climate modeling, J. Climate, 27,
4607–4621, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00579.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00579.1</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Malz, P., Meier, W., Casassa, G., Jaña, R., Skvarca, P., and Braun, M.
H.: Elevation and mass changes of the Southern Patagonia Icefield derived
from TanDEM-X and SRTM Data, Remote Sens., 10, 188, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020188" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/rs10020188</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Marshall, G. J., Thompson, D. W. J., and van den Broeke, M. R.: The Signature
of Southern Hemisphere Atmospheric Circulation Patterns in Antarctic
Precipitation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 11,580-11,589,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075998" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL075998</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Marzeion, B., Jarosch, A. H., and Hofer, M.: Past and future sea-level change from the surface mass balance of glaciers, The Cryosphere, 6, 1295–1322, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-1295-2012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-6-1295-2012</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Massmann, A. K., Minder, J. R., Garreaud, R. D., Kingsmill, D. E.,
Valenzuela, R. A., Montecinos, A., Fults, S. L., and Snider, J. R.: The
Chilean Coastal Orographic Precipitation Experiment: Observing the Influence
of Microphysical Rain Regimes on Coastal Orographic Precipitation, J.
Hydrometeorol., 18, 2723–2743, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-17-0005.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/jhm-d-17-0005.1</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mayr, C., Langhamer, L., Wissel, H., Meier, W., Sauter, T., Laprida, C., Massaferro, J., Försterra, G., and Lücke, A.: Atmospheric controls on hydrogen and oxygen isotope composition of meteoric and surface waters in Patagonia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-431" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-2018-431</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Mernild, S. H., Liston, G. E., Hiemstra, C., and Wilson, R.: The Andes
Cordillera. Part III: glacier surface mass balance and contribution to sea
level rise (1979–2014), Int. J. Climatol., 37, 3154–3174,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4907" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.4907</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Muñoz, R. C. and Garreaud, R. D.: Dynamics of the Low-Level Jet off the
West Coast of Subtropical South America, Mon. Weather Rev., 133,
3661–3677, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>NASA/CIGRA: Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) elevation data v4.1, available at: <uri>https://cgiarcsi.community/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-database-v4-1</uri>,
last access: 16 November 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page2016?><ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratoin (NOAA): Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA), available at: <uri>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon/integrated-global-radiosonde-archive</uri>,
last access: 22 February 2017a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratoin (NOAA): Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS), available at: <uri>http://www.remss.com/missions/ssmi</uri>, last access: 3 March 2017b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., and Flannery, B. P.:
Numerical recipes 3rd edition: The art of scientific computing, Cambridge
university press, Cambridge, UK, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rasmussen, L. A., Conway, H., and Raymond, C. F.: Influence of upper air
conditions on the Patagonia icefields, Global Planet. Change, 59, 203–216,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.11.025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.11.025</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Rignot, E., Rivera, A., and Casassa, G.: Contribution of the Patagonia
Icefields of South America to Sea Level Rise, Science, 302,
434–437, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1087393" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1087393</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sauter, T., Schneider, C., Kilian, R., and Moritz, M.: Simulation and
analysis of runoff from a partly glaciated meso-scale catchment area in
Patagonia using an artificial neural network, Hydrol. Process., 23,
1019–1030, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7210" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.7210</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Sauter, T., Möller, M., Finkelnburg, R., Grabiec, M., Scherer, D., and Schneider, C.: Snowdrift modelling for the Vestfonna ice cap, north-eastern Svalbard, The Cryosphere, 7, 1287–1301, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1287-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-7-1287-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schaefer, M., Machguth, H., Falvey, M., and Casassa, G.: Modeling past and
future surface mass balance of the Northern Patagonia Icefield, J. Geophys.
Res.-Earth, 118, 571–588, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrf.20038" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/jgrf.20038</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schaefer, M., Machguth, H., Falvey, M., Casassa, G., and Rignot, E.: Quantifying mass balance processes on the Southern Patagonia Icefield, The Cryosphere, 9, 25–35, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-25-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/tc-9-25-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schneider, C. and Gies, D.: Effects of El Niño-southern oscillation on
southernmost South America precipitation at 53<inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S revealed from
NCEP-NCAR reanalyses and weather station data, Int. J. Climatol., 24,
1057–1076, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1057" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.1057</ext-link>, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schneider, C., Glaser, M., Kilian, R., Santana, A., Butorovic, N., and
Casassa, G.: Weather Observations Across the Southern Andes at 53<inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, Phys. Geogr., 24, 97–119, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.24.2.97" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2747/0272-3646.24.2.97</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Schneider, T., O'Gorman, P. A., Levine, X. J., Gorman, P. A. O., and Levine,
X. J.: Water vapor and the dynamics of climate changes, Rev. Geophys., 48,
1–22, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009RG000302" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009RG000302</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Schwikowski, M., Brütsch, S., Casassa, G., and Rivera, A.: A potential
high-elevation ice-core site at Hielo Patagónico Sur, Ann. Glaciol., 43,
8–13, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Shiraiwa, T., Kohshima, S., Uemura, R., Yoshida, N., Matoba, S., Uetake, J.,
and Godoi, M. A.: High net accumulation rates at Campo de Hielo Patagonico
Sur, South America, revealed by analysis of a 45.97 m long ice core, Ann.
Glaciol., 35, 84–90, 2002.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Smith, R. B. and Barstad, I.: A Linear Theory of Orographic Precipitation,
J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1377–1391, 2004.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Smith, R. B. and Evans, J. P.: Orographic Precipitation and Water Vapor
Fractionation over the Southern Andes, J. Hydrometeorol., 8, 3–19,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM555.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM555.1</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Thompson, D. W. J. and Solomon, S.: Interpretation of recent Southern
Hemisphere climate change, Science, 296, 895–899,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069270" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1069270</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J., and Smith, L.: Trends and variability in
column-integrated atmospheric water vapor, Clim. Dynam., 24, 741–758,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-005-0017-4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s00382-005-0017-4</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Vallis, G. K., Zurita-gotor, P., Cairns, C., and Kidston, J.: Response of the
Large-Scale Structure of the Atmosphere to Global Warming, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 141, 1–27, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2456" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/qj.2456</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Vargas, C. A., Cuevas, L. A., Silva, N., González, H. E., De Pol-Holz, R., and
Narváez, D. A.: Influence of Glacier Melting and River
Discharges on the Nutrient Distribution and DIC Recycling in the Southern
Chilean Patagonia, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 123, 256–270, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Viale, M. and Garreaud, R.: Orographic effects of the subtropical and
extratropical Andes on upwind precipitating clouds, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
120, 4962–4974, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Viale, M., Houze Jr., R. A., and
Rasmussen, K. L.: Upstream Orographic Enhancement of a Narrow Cold-Frontal
Rainband Approaching the Andes, Mon. Weather Rev., 141, 1708–1730,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00138.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/MWR-D-12-00138.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Waliser, D. and Guan, B.: Extreme winds and precipitation during landfall of
atmospheric rivers, Nat. Geosci., 10, 179–183, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2894" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo2894</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Weidemann, S., Sauter, T., Schneider, L., and Schneider, C.: Impact of two
conceptual precipitation downscaling schemes on mass-balance modeling of
Gran Campo Nevado ice cap, Patagonia, J. Glaciol., 59, 1106–1116,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2013JoG13J046" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3189/2013JoG13J046</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Weidemann, S. S., Sauter, T., Kilian, R., Steger, D., Butorovic, N., and
Schneider, C.: A 17-year Record of Meteorological Observations Across the
Gran Campo Nevado Ice Cap in Southern Patagonia, Chile, Related to Synoptic
Weather Types and Climate Modes, Front. Earth Sci., 6, 53,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00053" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2018.00053</ext-link>, 2018a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Weidemann, S. S., Sauter, T., Malz, P., Jaña, R., Arigony-Neto, J.,
Casassa, G., and Schneider, C.: Glacier Mass Changes of Lake-Terminating Grey
and Tyndall Glaciers at the Southern Patagonia Icefield Derived From
Geodetic Observations and Energy and Mass Balance Modeling, Front. Earth
Sci., 6, 81, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00081" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3389/feart.2018.00081</ext-link>, 2018b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>
Wentz, F. J., Spencer, R. W., Systems, R. S., Rosa, S., and Hydrology, G.:
SSM/I rain retrievals within a unified all-weather ocean algorithm, J.
Atmos. Sci., 55, 1613–1627, 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Willis, M. J., Melkonian, A. K., Pritchard, M. E., and Rivera, A.: Ice loss
from the Southern Patagonian ice field, South America, between 2000 and
2012, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L17501, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053136" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2012GL053136</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Revisiting extreme precipitation amounts over southern South America and implications for the Patagonian Icefields</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>Patagonia is thought to be one of the wettest regions on Earth,
although available regional precipitation estimates vary considerably. This
uncertainty complicates understanding and quantifying the observed
environmental changes, such as glacier recession, biodiversity decline in
fjord ecosystems and enhanced net primary production. The Patagonian
Icefields, for example, are one of the largest contributors to sea-level
rise outside the polar regions, and robust hydroclimatic projections are
needed to understand and quantify current and future mass changes. The
reported projections of precipitation from numerical modelling studies tend
to overestimate those from in situ determinations, and the plausibility of
these numbers has never been carefully scrutinized, despite the
significance of this topic to our understanding of observed environmental
changes. Here I use simple physical arguments and a linear model to test the
plausibility of the current precipitation estimates and its impact on the
Patagonian Icefields. The results show that environmental conditions
required to sustain a mean precipitation amount exceeding 6.09±0.64&thinsp;m&thinsp;yr<sup>−1</sup> are untenable according to the regional moisture flux. The revised
precipitation values imply a significant reduction in the surface mass balance
of the Patagonian Icefields compared to previously reported values. This
yields a new perspective on the response of Patagonia's glaciers to climate
change and their sea-level contribution and might also help reduce
uncertainties in the change of other precipitation-driven environmental
phenomena.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Aguirre, F., Carrasco, J., Sauter, T., Schneider, C., Gaete, K. R., Garin,
E., Adaros, R., Jaña, R. A., and Casassa, G.: Snow cover change as a
climate indicator in Brunswick Peninsula, Patagonia, Front. Earth Sci., 6,
130,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00130" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00130</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Aracena, C., Lange, C. B., Iriarte, J. L., Rebolledo, L., and Pantoja, S.:
Latitudinal patterns of export production recorded in surface sediments of
the Chilean Patagonian fjords (41–55°&thinsp;S) as a response to water column
productivity, Cont. Shelf Res., 31, 340–355, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Aravena, J. C. and Luckman, B. H.: Spatio-temporal rainfall patterns in
Southern South America, Int. J. Climatol., 29, 2106–2120, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1761" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1761</a>,
2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Barrett, B. S., Garreaud, R., and Falvey, M.: Effect of the Andes Cordillera
on Precipitation from a Midlatitude Cold Front, Mon. Weather Rev., 137,
3092–3109, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2881.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009MWR2881.1</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Barstad, I. and Smith, R. B.: Evaluation of an orographic precipitation
model, J. Hydrometeorol., 6, 85–99, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-404.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-404.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bown, F., Rivera, A., Pętlicki, M., Bravo, C., Oberreuter, J., and
Moffat, C.: Recent ice dynamics and mass balance of Jorge Montt Glacier,
Southern Patagonia Icefield, J. Glaciol., 65, 732–744,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2019.47" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2019.47</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Braun, M. H., Malz, P., Sommer, C., Farías-Barahona, D., Sauter, T.,
Casassa, G., Soruco, A., Skvarca, P., and Seehaus, T. C.: Constraining
glacier elevation and mass changes in South America, Nat. Clim. Chang.,
9, 130–136, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0375-7" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0375-7</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Bravo, C., Bozkurt, D., Gonzalez-Reyes, Á., Quincey, D. J., Ross, A. N.,
Farías-Barahona, D., and Rojas, M.: Assessing Snow Accumulation Patterns
and Changes on the Patagonian Icefields, Front. Environ. Sci., 7, 30,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00030" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2019.00030</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P.,
Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P.,
Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N.,
Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S.
B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P.,
Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., Mcnally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M.,
Morcrette, J. J., Park, B. K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C.,
Thépaut, J. N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: Configuration
and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc.,
137, 553–597, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.828</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Durre, I., Vose, R. S., and Wuertz, D. B.: Overview of the integrated global
radiosonde archive, J. Climate, 19, 53–68, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3594.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3594.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Escobar, F.: Water balance in the Patagonia Icefield, Glaciol. Res. Patagon.,
1990, 109–119, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF): ERA-Interim data,
available at: <a href="https://www.ecmwf.int/en/forecasts/datasets/reanalysis-datasets/era-interim" target="_blank"/>,
last access: 22 February 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Falvey, M. and Garreaud, R.: Wintertime Precipitation Episodes in Central
Chile: Associated Meteorological Conditions and Orographic Influences, J.
Hydrometeorol., 8, 171–193, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM562.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM562.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Foresta, L., Gourmelen, N., Weissgerber, F., Nienow, P., Williams, J. J.,
Shepherd, A., Drinkwater, M. R., and Plummer, S.: Heterogeneous and rapid ice
loss over the Patagonian Ice Fields revealed by CryoSat-2 swath radar
altimetry, Remote Sens. Environ., 211, 441–455, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Garreaud, R. D.: Precipitation and circulation covariability in the
extratropics, J. Climate, 20, 4789–4797, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4257.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI4257.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Garreaud, R. D.: The Andes climate and weather, Adv. Geosci., 22, 3–11, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-22-3-2009" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-22-3-2009</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Garreaud, R. D. and Muñoz, R. C.: The Low-Level Jet off the West Coast
of Subtropical South America: Structure and Variability, Mon. Weather Rev.,
133, 2246–2261, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3074.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR3074.1</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Garreaud, R. D., Lopez, P., Minvielle, M., and Rojas, M.: Large-scale control
on the Patagonian climate, J. Climate, 26, 215–230,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00001.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00001.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Garreaud, R., Falvey, M., Montecinos, A., Garreaud, R., Falvey, M., and
Montecinos, A.: Orographic Precipitation in Coastal Southern Chile: Mean
Distribution, Temporal Variability, and Linear Contribution, J.
Hydrometeorol., 17, 1185–1202, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0170.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-15-0170.1</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Held, I. M., Soden, B. J., Held, I. M., and Soden, B. J.: Robust Responses of
the Hydrological Cycle to Global Warming, J. Climate, 19, 5686–5699,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3990.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3990.1</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Jarosch, A. H., Anslow, F. S., and Clarke, G. K. C.: High-resolution
precipitation and temperature downscaling for glacier models, Clim. Dynam.,
38, 391–409, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0949-1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-010-0949-1</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Jarvis, A., Reuter, H. I., Nelson, A., and Guevara, E.: Hole-filled SRTM for the globe Version 4, available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database, available at: <a href="https://cgiarcsi.community/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-database-v4-1" target="_blank"/>
(last access: 16 November 2016), 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Jobbágy, E. G., Sala, O. E., and Paruelo, J. M.: Patterns and controls of
primary production in the Patagonian steppe: a remote sensing approach,
Ecology, 83, 307–319, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Killick, R., Fearnhead, P., and Eckley, I. A.: Optimal detection of
changepoints with a linear computational cost, J. Am. Stat. Assoc.,
107, 1590–1598, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2012.737745" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2012.737745</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Landaeta, M. F., López, G., Suárez-Donoso, N., Bustos, C. A.,
Balbontiín, F., and Balbontín, F.: Larval fish distribution, growth
and feeding in Patagonian fjords: potential effects of freshwater discharge,
Environ. Biol. Fish., 93, 73–87, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-011-9891-2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10641-011-9891-2</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Langhamer, L., Sauter, T., and Mayr, G. J.: Lagrangian Detection of Moisture
Sources for the Southern Patagonia Icefield (1979–2017), Front. Earth Sci.,
6, 219, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00219" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00219</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Lenaerts, J. T. M., Van Den Broeke, M. R., van Wessem, J. M., van de Berg,
W. J., van Meijgaard, E., van Ulft, L. H., Schaefer, M., and Bilt, D.:
Extreme precipitation and climate gradients in Patagonia revealed by
high-resolution regional atmospheric climate modeling, J. Climate, 27,
4607–4621, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00579.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00579.1</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Malz, P., Meier, W., Casassa, G., Jaña, R., Skvarca, P., and Braun, M.
H.: Elevation and mass changes of the Southern Patagonia Icefield derived
from TanDEM-X and SRTM Data, Remote Sens., 10, 188, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020188" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10020188</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Marshall, G. J., Thompson, D. W. J., and van den Broeke, M. R.: The Signature
of Southern Hemisphere Atmospheric Circulation Patterns in Antarctic
Precipitation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 11,580-11,589,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075998" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL075998</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Marzeion, B., Jarosch, A. H., and Hofer, M.: Past and future sea-level change from the surface mass balance of glaciers, The Cryosphere, 6, 1295–1322, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-1295-2012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-6-1295-2012</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Massmann, A. K., Minder, J. R., Garreaud, R. D., Kingsmill, D. E.,
Valenzuela, R. A., Montecinos, A., Fults, S. L., and Snider, J. R.: The
Chilean Coastal Orographic Precipitation Experiment: Observing the Influence
of Microphysical Rain Regimes on Coastal Orographic Precipitation, J.
Hydrometeorol., 18, 2723–2743, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-17-0005.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-17-0005.1</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Mayr, C., Langhamer, L., Wissel, H., Meier, W., Sauter, T., Laprida, C., Massaferro, J., Försterra, G., and Lücke, A.: Atmospheric controls on hydrogen and oxygen isotope composition of meteoric and surface waters in Patagonia, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-431" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-431</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Mernild, S. H., Liston, G. E., Hiemstra, C., and Wilson, R.: The Andes
Cordillera. Part III: glacier surface mass balance and contribution to sea
level rise (1979–2014), Int. J. Climatol., 37, 3154–3174,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4907" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4907</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Muñoz, R. C. and Garreaud, R. D.: Dynamics of the Low-Level Jet off the
West Coast of Subtropical South America, Mon. Weather Rev., 133,
3661–3677, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
NASA/CIGRA: Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission (SRTM) elevation data v4.1, available at: <a href="https://cgiarcsi.community/data/srtm-90m-digital-elevation-database-v4-1" target="_blank"/>,
last access: 16 November 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratoin (NOAA): Integrated Global Radiosonde Archive (IGRA), available at: <a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-access/weather-balloon/integrated-global-radiosonde-archive" target="_blank"/>,
last access: 22 February 2017a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administratoin (NOAA): Special Sensor Microwave Imager/Sounder (SSMIS), available at: <a href="http://www.remss.com/missions/ssmi" target="_blank"/>, last access: 3 March 2017b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Press, W. H., Teukolsky, S. A., Vetterling, W. T., and Flannery, B. P.:
Numerical recipes 3rd edition: The art of scientific computing, Cambridge
university press, Cambridge, UK, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Rasmussen, L. A., Conway, H., and Raymond, C. F.: Influence of upper air
conditions on the Patagonia icefields, Global Planet. Change, 59, 203–216,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.11.025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2006.11.025</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Rignot, E., Rivera, A., and Casassa, G.: Contribution of the Patagonia
Icefields of South America to Sea Level Rise, Science, 302,
434–437, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1087393" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1087393</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Sauter, T., Schneider, C., Kilian, R., and Moritz, M.: Simulation and
analysis of runoff from a partly glaciated meso-scale catchment area in
Patagonia using an artificial neural network, Hydrol. Process., 23,
1019–1030, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7210" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7210</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Sauter, T., Möller, M., Finkelnburg, R., Grabiec, M., Scherer, D., and Schneider, C.: Snowdrift modelling for the Vestfonna ice cap, north-eastern Svalbard, The Cryosphere, 7, 1287–1301, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1287-2013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-7-1287-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Schaefer, M., Machguth, H., Falvey, M., and Casassa, G.: Modeling past and
future surface mass balance of the Northern Patagonia Icefield, J. Geophys.
Res.-Earth, 118, 571–588, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrf.20038" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/jgrf.20038</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Schaefer, M., Machguth, H., Falvey, M., Casassa, G., and Rignot, E.: Quantifying mass balance processes on the Southern Patagonia Icefield, The Cryosphere, 9, 25–35, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-25-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-9-25-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Schneider, C. and Gies, D.: Effects of El Niño-southern oscillation on
southernmost South America precipitation at 53°&thinsp;S revealed from
NCEP-NCAR reanalyses and weather station data, Int. J. Climatol., 24,
1057–1076, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1057" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1057</a>, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Schneider, C., Glaser, M., Kilian, R., Santana, A., Butorovic, N., and
Casassa, G.: Weather Observations Across the Southern Andes at 53°&thinsp;S, Phys. Geogr., 24, 97–119, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.24.2.97" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.24.2.97</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Schneider, T., O'Gorman, P. A., Levine, X. J., Gorman, P. A. O., and Levine,
X. J.: Water vapor and the dynamics of climate changes, Rev. Geophys., 48,
1–22, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2009RG000302" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2009RG000302</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Schwikowski, M., Brütsch, S., Casassa, G., and Rivera, A.: A potential
high-elevation ice-core site at Hielo Patagónico Sur, Ann. Glaciol., 43,
8–13, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Shiraiwa, T., Kohshima, S., Uemura, R., Yoshida, N., Matoba, S., Uetake, J.,
and Godoi, M. A.: High net accumulation rates at Campo de Hielo Patagonico
Sur, South America, revealed by analysis of a 45.97&thinsp;m long ice core, Ann.
Glaciol., 35, 84–90, 2002.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, R. B. and Barstad, I.: A Linear Theory of Orographic Precipitation,
J. Atmos. Sci., 61, 1377–1391, 2004.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Smith, R. B. and Evans, J. P.: Orographic Precipitation and Water Vapor
Fractionation over the Southern Andes, J. Hydrometeorol., 8, 3–19,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM555.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JHM555.1</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Thompson, D. W. J. and Solomon, S.: Interpretation of recent Southern
Hemisphere climate change, Science, 296, 895–899,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069270" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1069270</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Trenberth, K. E., Fasullo, J., and Smith, L.: Trends and variability in
column-integrated atmospheric water vapor, Clim. Dynam., 24, 741–758,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-005-0017-4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-005-0017-4</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Vallis, G. K., Zurita-gotor, P., Cairns, C., and Kidston, J.: Response of the
Large-Scale Structure of the Atmosphere to Global Warming, Q. J. Roy.
Meteor. Soc., 141, 1–27, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2456" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.2456</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Vargas, C. A., Cuevas, L. A., Silva, N., González, H. E., De Pol-Holz, R., and
Narváez, D. A.: Influence of Glacier Melting and River
Discharges on the Nutrient Distribution and DIC Recycling in the Southern
Chilean Patagonia, J. Geophys. Res.-Biogeo., 123, 256–270, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Viale, M. and Garreaud, R.: Orographic effects of the subtropical and
extratropical Andes on upwind precipitating clouds, J. Geophys. Res.-Atmos.,
120, 4962–4974, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Viale, M., Houze Jr., R. A., and
Rasmussen, K. L.: Upstream Orographic Enhancement of a Narrow Cold-Frontal
Rainband Approaching the Andes, Mon. Weather Rev., 141, 1708–1730,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00138.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/MWR-D-12-00138.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Waliser, D. and Guan, B.: Extreme winds and precipitation during landfall of
atmospheric rivers, Nat. Geosci., 10, 179–183, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2894" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2894</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Weidemann, S., Sauter, T., Schneider, L., and Schneider, C.: Impact of two
conceptual precipitation downscaling schemes on mass-balance modeling of
Gran Campo Nevado ice cap, Patagonia, J. Glaciol., 59, 1106–1116,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3189/2013JoG13J046" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3189/2013JoG13J046</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Weidemann, S. S., Sauter, T., Kilian, R., Steger, D., Butorovic, N., and
Schneider, C.: A 17-year Record of Meteorological Observations Across the
Gran Campo Nevado Ice Cap in Southern Patagonia, Chile, Related to Synoptic
Weather Types and Climate Modes, Front. Earth Sci., 6, 53,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00053" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00053</a>, 2018a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Weidemann, S. S., Sauter, T., Malz, P., Jaña, R., Arigony-Neto, J.,
Casassa, G., and Schneider, C.: Glacier Mass Changes of Lake-Terminating Grey
and Tyndall Glaciers at the Southern Patagonia Icefield Derived From
Geodetic Observations and Energy and Mass Balance Modeling, Front. Earth
Sci., 6, 81, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00081" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2018.00081</a>, 2018b.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Wentz, F. J., Spencer, R. W., Systems, R. S., Rosa, S., and Hydrology, G.:
SSM/I rain retrievals within a unified all-weather ocean algorithm, J.
Atmos. Sci., 55, 1613–1627, 1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Willis, M. J., Melkonian, A. K., Pritchard, M. E., and Rivera, A.: Ice loss
from the Southern Patagonian ice field, South America, between 2000 and
2012, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, L17501, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053136" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2012GL053136</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
