Differential impact of isolated topographic bumps on glacial ice flow and subglacial processes

McKenzie, Marion A.; Simkins, Lauren M.; Slawson, Jacob S.; MacKie, Emma J.; Wang, Shujie

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220

Preprints

28 Nov 2022

| 28 Nov 2022

Differential impact of isolated topographic bumps on glacial ice flow and subglacial processes

Marion A. McKenzie, Lauren M. Simkins, Jacob S. Slawson, Emma J. MacKie, and Shujie Wang

Abstract. Topographic highs (“bumps”) across glaciated landscapes have the potential to temporarily slow glacial ice flow or, conversely, increase ice flow through strain heating and subglacial meltwater production. Isolated bumps of variable size across the deglaciated landscape of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet (CIS) of Washington state present an opportunity to assess the influence of topographic highs on ice-bed interactions and ice flow organization. This work utilizes semi-automatic mapping techniques of subglacial bedforms to characterize the morphology of streamlined subglacial bedforms including elongation, surface relief, and orientation – all of which provide insight into subglacial processes during post-Last Glacial Maximum deglaciation of the landscape. We identify a bump-size threshold of ~ 4.5 km³ in which bumps larger than this size will consistently and significantly disrupt both ice-flow organization and subglacial sedimentary processes – fundamental to the genesis of streamlined subglacial bedforms. Additionally, sedimentary processes are most mature downstream of bumps as reflected by enhanced bedform elongation and reduced surface relief, likely due to increased availability and production of subglacial sediment and meltwater. While isolated topography is found to play a role in disrupting ice flow, not all bumps have the same degree of impact. The variable influence of isolated topographic bumps on ice flow in this system has significance for outlet glaciers of the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) due to general topographic similarities.

Received: 11 Nov 2022 – Discussion started: 28 Nov 2022

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 2773 KB)

Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
Preprint (2773 KB)

Download & links

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

22 Jun 2023

Differential impact of isolated topographic bumps on ice sheet flow and subglacial processes

Marion A. McKenzie, Lauren E. Miller, Jacob S. Slawson, Emma J. MacKie, and Shujie Wang

The Cryosphere, 17, 2477–2486, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2477-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2477-2023, 2023

Short summary

Marion A. McKenzie, Lauren M. Simkins, Jacob S. Slawson, Emma J. MacKie, and Shujie Wang

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-1220', Anna L.C. Hughes, 23 Jan 2023

Differential impact of isolated topographic bumps on glacial ice flow and subglacial processes

McKenzie et al. Submission to The Cyrosphere
General comments:

This paper presents a morphometric analysis of a dataset of subglacial bedforms of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet to assess the influence of isolated changes in subglacial topographic relief on ice flow. The bedform dataset, was generated by semi-automatic mapping from Digital Elevation Models, the methods of which are summarised here and presented by the authors in cited papers published elsewhere. For this study nine sites within Puget Lowland were selected that capture isolated topographic highs of variable area and height in both crystalline and volcanic bedrock, with between 125 and 1013 bedforms at each site examined. The authors classify bedforms within 100 feet of each bump as being upstream, downstream or on top of each bump and use this to examine variations in the morphometry of bedforms, focussing on their elongation ratio and surface relief. Despite the relatively small sample size this dataset and analysis provides new data on the potential role of subglacial topography on landform morphometry.
The authors explain the morphometry by invoking explanations related to changes in lithology and thus sediment availability, as well as subglacial pressure and meltwater changes. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that bump volume appears to control the downstream bedform orientation, with bump volumes of 4.5 km³ or less showing a persistent downstream legacy on bedform orientation (and thus ice flow organisation). Though this threshold is defined by only two sites with bumps >4.5 km³. Further studies from a greater range of glaciated environments and ice flow settings are needed to explore this finding further.
I found this short paper to be well written. The description of the analysis and results are comprehensive and clear. Figures are high quality, although see comments below.
Specific comments:
Methods: The vertical and horizontal resoltuion of the DEMs used as the basis for bedform mapping needs to be added.
Figure 1: The colour choices in this figure for both the background elevation data and the mapping mean that there is little contrast between the two, and the mapping is hard to see (especially the green bedforms appearing on the lowest topography. I suggest modifying the colour schemes to improve this. The elevation scale for each of the panels in A) also varies. In order to compare across sites it would be preferable to use a single colour scale for elevation in each panel. There should also be a space between the value and the unit in the labels. The study area panel is very dark. For those unfamiliar with the region there should be inclusion of a small inset to show the wider context of the location within the area covered by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The area comparisons in (B) is a very useful figure, but would be easier to follow if the lines connecting the labels to the graduated circles were thinner, and the colours of the text boxes were the same as the circles, especially as this same colour scheme is continued throughout the other figures to identify each site. It is unclear what the volume values are pertaining to in the labels. Is this of the area, the bump, or the bedforms?
Figure 2: Include in the legend the site codes as used in Fig 1 as well as the names, or add site names to the labelling in Figure 1A.
I would recommend acceptance of the paper with corrections as specified under specific comments.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
  
  REVIEW 1
  Thank you for your comments and time spent assessing this work. All of your specific comments and suggestions are addressed in the following text.
  Specific comments:
  Methods: The vertical and horizontal resolution of the DEMs used as the basis for bedform mapping needs to be added.
  This information will be added in the revised manuscript.
  Figure 1: The colour choices in this figure for both the background elevation data and the mapping mean that there is little contrast between the two, and the mapping is hard to see (especially the green bedforms appearing on the lowest topography. I suggest modifying the colour schemes to improve this. The elevation scale for each of the panels in A) also varies. In order to compare across sites it would be preferable to use a single colour scale for elevation in each panel. There should also be a space between the value and the unit in the labels. The study area panel is very dark. For those unfamiliar with the region there should be inclusion of a small inset to show the wider context of the location within the area covered by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The area comparisons in (B) is a very useful figure, but would be easier to follow if the lines connecting the labels to the graduated circles were thinner, and the colours of the text boxes were the same as the circles, especially as this same colour scheme is continued throughout the other figures to identify each site. It is unclear what the volume values are pertaining to in the labels. Is this of the area, the bump, or the bedforms?
  The color of the bedforms will be modified in the final version of the figures, however, due to the large scale elevation differences between the bump sites themselves, one elevation scale will not be able to show any elevation variation across the smaller bump sizes. In order to see variability in elevation across each site, the individual elevation ranges are needed. A space will be added between the elevation values and units in the labels. The study area panel will be updated to be lighter in color and an inset of Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation with the Puget Lowland highlighted will be added. Fig 1B will be updated by reducing the size of the lines connecting the labels to the circles and the color of the text boxes will be made to match the circles. Clarification and an additional figure representing volume of the bumps will be added to this figure (also addressing a comment from Anders Damsgaard).
  Figure 2: Include in the legend the site codes as used in Fig 1 as well as the names, or add site names to the labelling in Figure 1A.
  The site codes used in Fig 1 will be added to the legend in Fig 2.
  I would recommend acceptance of the paper with corrections as specified under specific comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-1220', Anders Damsgaard, 01 Feb 2023
In this manuscript, the authors analyze over 3,000 landforms left behind after the Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington state. Among other insights on the dynamics around subglacial bumps, the authors find that large bumps, with a volume greater than 4.5 km³, cause a significant change in bedform geometry and, consequently, the ice flow itself. The results are novel and are highly useful for developing ice-flow models that include basal landform evolution and the differential response of hard and soft beds.
The manuscript is exceptionally well written, and I do not have many suggestions for changes. I suggest publication after the following points have been considered:
L27-29: "Conversely, ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."

I agree with the logic that increased strain heating leads to bed weakening downstream of the bump through elevated basal water pressure and decreased effective stress. However, despite the basal weakening, the bump may not cause faster ice flow, as friction from the bump is transferred through the ice column by longitudinal stresses. The listed references, Payne and Dongelmans (1997) and Cuffey and Paterson (2010), are too general to support that specific hypothesis. I am unaware of recent observations of faster-than-usual ice flow downstream of sticky spots or bumps. Do you have observations or modeling references that could support the ice speed increase? Otherwise, I suggest that the hypothesis is reframed so that the observed changes in bedforms downstream of bumps are due to elevated basal water pressure and reduced basal friction, not basal ice speed.

Figure 1B: The concentric circles in panel B are hard for me to tie to the statistics listed in the accompanying boxes. I would much prefer 2D plots containing the same information, which in my opinion, would make it easier to spot trends and variability.

Figure 4AB: Is it possible to remove the gray background in panels A and B? It makes it hard for me to discern the color differences between lines on my monitor.

Thank you for considering my comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
  
  REVIEW 2
  Thank you for these comments. Your consideration of our logic in downstream ice-flow velocity is very helpful and will strengthen this work. All of your comments have been addressed in the following text.
  The manuscript is exceptionally well written, and I do not have many suggestions for changes. I suggest publication after the following points have been considered:
  L27-29: Conversely,ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."
  
  I agree with the logic that increased strain heating leads to bed weakening downstream of the bump through elevated basal water pressure and decreased effective stress. However, despite the basal weakening, the bump may not cause faster ice flow, as friction from the bump is transferred through the ice column by longitudinal stresses. The listed references, Payne and Dongelmans (1997) and Cuffey and Paterson (2010), are too general to support that specific hypothesis. I am unaware of recent observations of faster-than-usual ice flow downstream of sticky spots or bumps. Do you have observations or modeling references that could support the ice speed increase? Otherwise, I suggest that the hypothesis is reframed so that the observed changes in bedforms downstream of bumps are due to elevated basal water pressure and reduced basal friction, not basal ice speed.
  Thank you for sharing this perspective – the consideration for basal water pressure and reduced basal friction in synthesizing longer bedforms will be added to the revised manuscript. Referencing ice speed increase downstream of bumps was identified as a result of the bedform morphology due to the role of ice speed in developing bedform elongation. However, you’re right that observations or modeling references do not find this same result, suggesting the role of basal water pressure and reduced basal friction are likely the factors contributing to this downstream increase in bedform elongation.
  Figure 1B: The concentric circles in panel B are hard for me to tie to the statistics listed in the accompanying boxes. I would much prefer 2D plots containing the same information, which in my opinion, would make it easier to spot trends and variability.
  An additional 2D plot representing bump volume will be added to complement the concentric circles representing bump surface area to help illustrate this point.
  Figure 4AB: Is it possible to remove the gray background in panels A and B? It makes it hard for me to discern the color differences between lines on my monitor.
  This adjustment will be made to the final version of Fig 4.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-1220', Anna L.C. Hughes, 23 Jan 2023

Differential impact of isolated topographic bumps on glacial ice flow and subglacial processes

McKenzie et al. Submission to The Cyrosphere
General comments:

This paper presents a morphometric analysis of a dataset of subglacial bedforms of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet to assess the influence of isolated changes in subglacial topographic relief on ice flow. The bedform dataset, was generated by semi-automatic mapping from Digital Elevation Models, the methods of which are summarised here and presented by the authors in cited papers published elsewhere. For this study nine sites within Puget Lowland were selected that capture isolated topographic highs of variable area and height in both crystalline and volcanic bedrock, with between 125 and 1013 bedforms at each site examined. The authors classify bedforms within 100 feet of each bump as being upstream, downstream or on top of each bump and use this to examine variations in the morphometry of bedforms, focussing on their elongation ratio and surface relief. Despite the relatively small sample size this dataset and analysis provides new data on the potential role of subglacial topography on landform morphometry.
The authors explain the morphometry by invoking explanations related to changes in lithology and thus sediment availability, as well as subglacial pressure and meltwater changes. Perhaps the most interesting finding is that bump volume appears to control the downstream bedform orientation, with bump volumes of 4.5 km³ or less showing a persistent downstream legacy on bedform orientation (and thus ice flow organisation). Though this threshold is defined by only two sites with bumps >4.5 km³. Further studies from a greater range of glaciated environments and ice flow settings are needed to explore this finding further.
I found this short paper to be well written. The description of the analysis and results are comprehensive and clear. Figures are high quality, although see comments below.
Specific comments:
Methods: The vertical and horizontal resoltuion of the DEMs used as the basis for bedform mapping needs to be added.
Figure 1: The colour choices in this figure for both the background elevation data and the mapping mean that there is little contrast between the two, and the mapping is hard to see (especially the green bedforms appearing on the lowest topography. I suggest modifying the colour schemes to improve this. The elevation scale for each of the panels in A) also varies. In order to compare across sites it would be preferable to use a single colour scale for elevation in each panel. There should also be a space between the value and the unit in the labels. The study area panel is very dark. For those unfamiliar with the region there should be inclusion of a small inset to show the wider context of the location within the area covered by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The area comparisons in (B) is a very useful figure, but would be easier to follow if the lines connecting the labels to the graduated circles were thinner, and the colours of the text boxes were the same as the circles, especially as this same colour scheme is continued throughout the other figures to identify each site. It is unclear what the volume values are pertaining to in the labels. Is this of the area, the bump, or the bedforms?
Figure 2: Include in the legend the site codes as used in Fig 1 as well as the names, or add site names to the labelling in Figure 1A.
I would recommend acceptance of the paper with corrections as specified under specific comments.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
  
  REVIEW 1
  Thank you for your comments and time spent assessing this work. All of your specific comments and suggestions are addressed in the following text.
  Specific comments:
  Methods: The vertical and horizontal resolution of the DEMs used as the basis for bedform mapping needs to be added.
  This information will be added in the revised manuscript.
  Figure 1: The colour choices in this figure for both the background elevation data and the mapping mean that there is little contrast between the two, and the mapping is hard to see (especially the green bedforms appearing on the lowest topography. I suggest modifying the colour schemes to improve this. The elevation scale for each of the panels in A) also varies. In order to compare across sites it would be preferable to use a single colour scale for elevation in each panel. There should also be a space between the value and the unit in the labels. The study area panel is very dark. For those unfamiliar with the region there should be inclusion of a small inset to show the wider context of the location within the area covered by the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. The area comparisons in (B) is a very useful figure, but would be easier to follow if the lines connecting the labels to the graduated circles were thinner, and the colours of the text boxes were the same as the circles, especially as this same colour scheme is continued throughout the other figures to identify each site. It is unclear what the volume values are pertaining to in the labels. Is this of the area, the bump, or the bedforms?
  The color of the bedforms will be modified in the final version of the figures, however, due to the large scale elevation differences between the bump sites themselves, one elevation scale will not be able to show any elevation variation across the smaller bump sizes. In order to see variability in elevation across each site, the individual elevation ranges are needed. A space will be added between the elevation values and units in the labels. The study area panel will be updated to be lighter in color and an inset of Cordilleran Ice Sheet glaciation with the Puget Lowland highlighted will be added. Fig 1B will be updated by reducing the size of the lines connecting the labels to the circles and the color of the text boxes will be made to match the circles. Clarification and an additional figure representing volume of the bumps will be added to this figure (also addressing a comment from Anders Damsgaard).
  Figure 2: Include in the legend the site codes as used in Fig 1 as well as the names, or add site names to the labelling in Figure 1A.
  The site codes used in Fig 1 will be added to the legend in Fig 2.
  I would recommend acceptance of the paper with corrections as specified under specific comments.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2022-1220', Anders Damsgaard, 01 Feb 2023
In this manuscript, the authors analyze over 3,000 landforms left behind after the Cordilleran Ice Sheet in Washington state. Among other insights on the dynamics around subglacial bumps, the authors find that large bumps, with a volume greater than 4.5 km³, cause a significant change in bedform geometry and, consequently, the ice flow itself. The results are novel and are highly useful for developing ice-flow models that include basal landform evolution and the differential response of hard and soft beds.
The manuscript is exceptionally well written, and I do not have many suggestions for changes. I suggest publication after the following points have been considered:
L27-29: "Conversely, ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."

I agree with the logic that increased strain heating leads to bed weakening downstream of the bump through elevated basal water pressure and decreased effective stress. However, despite the basal weakening, the bump may not cause faster ice flow, as friction from the bump is transferred through the ice column by longitudinal stresses. The listed references, Payne and Dongelmans (1997) and Cuffey and Paterson (2010), are too general to support that specific hypothesis. I am unaware of recent observations of faster-than-usual ice flow downstream of sticky spots or bumps. Do you have observations or modeling references that could support the ice speed increase? Otherwise, I suggest that the hypothesis is reframed so that the observed changes in bedforms downstream of bumps are due to elevated basal water pressure and reduced basal friction, not basal ice speed.

Figure 1B: The concentric circles in panel B are hard for me to tie to the statistics listed in the accompanying boxes. I would much prefer 2D plots containing the same information, which in my opinion, would make it easier to spot trends and variability.

Figure 4AB: Is it possible to remove the gray background in panels A and B? It makes it hard for me to discern the color differences between lines on my monitor.

Thank you for considering my comments.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Marion McKenzie, 09 Feb 2023
  
  REVIEW 2
  Thank you for these comments. Your consideration of our logic in downstream ice-flow velocity is very helpful and will strengthen this work. All of your comments have been addressed in the following text.
  The manuscript is exceptionally well written, and I do not have many suggestions for changes. I suggest publication after the following points have been considered:
  L27-29: Conversely,ice flow over topographic highs can increase strain heating and basal meltwater production, thereby increasing ice-flow velocity downstream of the obstacle."
  
  I agree with the logic that increased strain heating leads to bed weakening downstream of the bump through elevated basal water pressure and decreased effective stress. However, despite the basal weakening, the bump may not cause faster ice flow, as friction from the bump is transferred through the ice column by longitudinal stresses. The listed references, Payne and Dongelmans (1997) and Cuffey and Paterson (2010), are too general to support that specific hypothesis. I am unaware of recent observations of faster-than-usual ice flow downstream of sticky spots or bumps. Do you have observations or modeling references that could support the ice speed increase? Otherwise, I suggest that the hypothesis is reframed so that the observed changes in bedforms downstream of bumps are due to elevated basal water pressure and reduced basal friction, not basal ice speed.
  Thank you for sharing this perspective – the consideration for basal water pressure and reduced basal friction in synthesizing longer bedforms will be added to the revised manuscript. Referencing ice speed increase downstream of bumps was identified as a result of the bedform morphology due to the role of ice speed in developing bedform elongation. However, you’re right that observations or modeling references do not find this same result, suggesting the role of basal water pressure and reduced basal friction are likely the factors contributing to this downstream increase in bedform elongation.
  Figure 1B: The concentric circles in panel B are hard for me to tie to the statistics listed in the accompanying boxes. I would much prefer 2D plots containing the same information, which in my opinion, would make it easier to spot trends and variability.
  An additional 2D plot representing bump volume will be added to complement the concentric circles representing bump surface area to help illustrate this point.
  Figure 4AB: Is it possible to remove the gray background in panels A and B? It makes it hard for me to discern the color differences between lines on my monitor.
  This adjustment will be made to the final version of Fig 4.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2022-1220-AC2

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (21 Feb 2023) by Pippa Whitehouse

AR by Marion McKenzie on behalf of the Authors (21 Feb 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (10 Mar 2023) by Pippa Whitehouse

RR by Matteo Spagnolo (27 Mar 2023)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear authors and editor,
I read with interest this well written manuscript that presents an interesting study on the relationship between ice sheet bedform metrics and bedrock “bumps”, and how this possible link can be used to inform how bumps affect ice sheet dynamics. I was asked to look at this manuscript with fresh eyes and, while I see that the authors have done a very good job at addressing the small concerns of the previous reviewers, and while the approach and results are certainly robust, I find that there is room for further improvement. Specifically, I would argue that a little more description of the results can be provided, and that the interpretations require a little more effort. Arguably, figures can do the job of describing results, and a concise discussion can be good if the interpretations are straightforward. However, I feel that the manuscript is a bit of a missed opportunity if some of the complications and limitations of the study and the topic in general are not at least mentioned. I am worried that, without such effort, some of the conclusions might end up representing oversimplification of an otherwise complex set of environments and processes. Overall, I suggest the manuscript is accepted for publication but pending the inclusion of more details on results and, especially, a stronger discussion as per below.

Methodology:
1. What is the process-linked justification for considering the lateral (relative to the bumps) bedforms in the downstream group?
2. The relief is an interesting metric, but, if I have not misunderstood it, wouldn’t its interpretation depend on how “quickly” a certain relief is attained and over what length? In other words, depending on where the max and min elevations are found, relative to the profile? How steep is the profile, and how consistently so along the long axis? For example, a 200 m long bedform with a 20 m relief could be linked to different processes than a 2000 m long bedform with the same relief. A bedform where the point of maximum elevation (say 20 m above the minimum elevation) is reached in the first (upstream) 10 m of its 2000 m long axis and another one where the same elevation is gained much slower (say the 20 m elevation gain is reached halfway through the 2000 m long bedform) might be linked to different process(es). Perhaps this is all covered in your other, cited paper, but it should at least be briefly mentioned here too as it is rather important relative to the interpretations.
3. Some of the study sites have more than one bump. This should be mentioned and its potential effect on processes acknowledged/considered.

Results:
4. More details could be provided. Specifically, what is the actual difference (e.g. on average/median) in the various metrics between bedforms up-stream of, on, and down-stream of the bumps?

Interpretations/discussion:
5. From what I can see from the figures, the difference in metrics is considerable and consistent between bedforms on a bump and up- or down-stream ones. However, I seem to notice that the difference between up- and down-stream bedforms is often within the noise and certainly not consistent in the 9 cases considered. If so, this should be more clearly stated and considered as it might have implications on some of your interpretations. In other word, some of the described processes used to justify the bedform metrics down-stream might not apply up-stream, and yet the metrics are similar/comparable.
6. The interpretations are largely based on previous papers’ attempt to link elongation, relief etc. to velocity and other ice sheet characteristics. Although these are published, I would argue that a little more details can be provided. For example, what do we mean by maturity or efficiency? What are the links between these processes? For example, is an efficient bed linked to high velocities? I would argue that it is important to provide some of these info and not give these for granted.
7. Some of the connections between bedform metrics and ice sheet characteristics, published in previous papers, might rely on a number of assumptions that should be at least acknowledged here. For example, I suspect that sediment starvation, porosity, bedrock fracturing etc. could all have had an impact in the metrics of bedforms. You say upfront that bedrock characteristics are out of scope, which I perfectly understand, but perhaps these are key for the interpretation of some of your results, so I would argue that they should form part of the discussion, even if you cannot reach a clear-cut conclusion. There are other aspects to consider too. What if the bedforms in each site are time-transgressive and reflect different phases (and possibly processes) of the ice sheet flow history? Can we resolve speed vs. duration when it comes to their influence on the metrics used here? Are the bedforms made up of sediment or bedrock? For example, some of the interpretations referred to in the manuscript seem more pertinent to bedrock bedforms than sedimentary ones (e.g. when you talk about erosion). I am not suggesting, of course, that you resolve all these assumptions/limitations, but it is important that they are at least mentioned/acknowledged.
8. I think most of the key papers used here for the interpretation on ice sheet dynamics come from palaeo studies. It would be interesting, and arguably important, to see what models and studies on present-day Antarctica and Greenland suggest with relation to these links and include a mention to these where pertinent.

I know it is probably annoying to receive these comments at a stage where you felt the manuscript should be essentially accepted in its resubmitted form and I would perfectly understand if you and/or the Editor decide to ignore the comments above. However, I do believe that it will be a much stronger paper if you could consider at least some of the raised points and, where valid and useful, use these to improve the study.
With best wishes,
Matteo

Hide

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (30 Mar 2023) by Pippa Whitehouse

AR by Marion McKenzie on behalf of the Authors (08 May 2023) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (11 May 2023) by Pippa Whitehouse

AR by Marion McKenzie on behalf of the Authors (11 May 2023) Author's response Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

22 Jun 2023

Differential impact of isolated topographic bumps on ice sheet flow and subglacial processes

Marion A. McKenzie, Lauren E. Miller, Jacob S. Slawson, Emma J. MacKie, and Shujie Wang

The Cryosphere, 17, 2477–2486, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2477-2023,https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-17-2477-2023, 2023

Short summary

Marion A. McKenzie, Lauren M. Simkins, Jacob S. Slawson, Emma J. MacKie, and Shujie Wang

Data sets

Streamlined subglacial bedforms across isolated topographic highs in the Puget Lowland, Washington state McKenzie, M. A., Simkins, L. M., Slawson, J. S., and Wang, S. https://issues.pangaea.de/browse/PDI-33324

Marion A. McKenzie, Lauren M. Simkins, Jacob S. Slawson, Emma J. MacKie, and Shujie Wang

Viewed

Total article views: 593 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
432	146	15	593	4	4

HTML: 432
PDF: 146
XML: 15
Total: 593
BibTeX: 4
EndNote: 4

Views and downloads (calculated since 28 Nov 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2022	132	39	4	175
Dec 2022	85	40	1	126
Jan 2023	51	15	3	69
Feb 2023	97	19	6	122
Mar 2023	28	12	0	40
Apr 2023	23	10	0	33
May 2023	10	7	0	17
Jun 2023	6	4	1	11
Jul 2023	0
Aug 2023	0
Sep 2023	0
Oct 2023	0
Nov 2023	0
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 28 Nov 2022)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Nov 2022	132	39	4	175
Dec 2022	85	40	1	126
Jan 2023	51	15	3	69
Feb 2023	97	19	6	122
Mar 2023	28	12	0	40
Apr 2023	23	10	0	33
May 2023	10	7	0	17
Jun 2023	6	4	1	11
Jul 2023	0
Aug 2023	0
Sep 2023	0
Oct 2023	0
Nov 2023	0
Dec 2023	0
Jan 2024	0
Feb 2024	0
Mar 2024	0
Apr 2024	0
May 2024	0
Jun 2024	0
Jul 2024	0
Aug 2024	0
Sep 2024	0

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 599 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 599 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 18 Sep 2024

Download

The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.

Preprint (2773 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

Topographic highs (“bumps”) across glaciated landscapes have the potential to affect glacial ice. Topographic bumps in the deglaciated Puget Lowland are assessed for streamlined glacial features to provide insight on ice-bed interactions. We identify a threshold in which bumps will consistently and significantly disrupt and sedimentary processes in this location. However, not all bumps have the same degree of impact. The system assessed here has relevance to parts of the Greenland Ice Sheet.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0