the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Increased Grounding Zone Ice Flux and Dynamic Thinning Creates Vulnerable Regions on George VI Ice Shelf, Antarctic Peninsula
Abstract. George VI Ice Shelf (GVIIS), on the western side of the Antarctic Peninsula, is currently losing mass. Paleo observations suggest that atmospheric and oceanic warming in the early Holocene caused complete loss of the ice shelf, leading to the possibility that modern observed warming can initiate a similar loss. Ice shelf loss is assumed to be, primarily, a direct response to atmospheric and ocean warming through increased hydrofracture and basal melting. Here, however, we consider the hypothesis that increased lubrication of grounded ice is a further contributor to destabilizing the ice shelf, where the lubrication may come from processes such as increased surface meltwater percolating to the base of glaciers or changes in liquid water fluxes across the grounding line. Motivated by the differences in our observation-based strain-induced dynamic thickness change between 2013–2018 along the northern and southern sectors GVIIS which also experiences variable surface melt, we use an ice sheet model to investigate this hypothesis. We find that, as expected, reduced bed friction increases the flow of grounded ice. However, because of the unique ice flow and buttressing features of GVIIS, the increased ice flux across the grounding line also increases compression of the northern GVIIS, which makes it resistant to rifting and hydrofracture. In contrast, the southern GVIIS, which is fed by ice streams sitting on submarine beds, experiences continued divergence. We suggest that the associated strain thinning reduces buttressing of grounded ice, creating a positive feedback of accelerated ice inflow to the southern GVIIS and likely making it more vulnerable to future retreats than the northern sector.
- Preprint
(1960 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1564', Kaian Shahateet, 30 Aug 2024
Dear Authors,
The subject of this paper is highly relevant to the glaciology community. It sheds light onto the dynamical thinning of ice shelves, which is hardly taken into account when predictions of ice shelves disintegration are made. The manuscript is well written with scientific language. Please, find below my general and specific comments to the manuscript.
General comments
- The introduction is too long. Consider removing some unnecessary information.
- Consider reducing and merging Sections 2.1 with introduction and 2.2 with methods.
- Section 3 (Methods) is confusing. Please, see my suggestions on the specific comments.
- The majority of the results are presented without uncertainty. There are some small changes that an uncertainty is really needed. Furthermore, a histogram of all the velocity changes is desired with error bars.
- The section of discussion includes the method of error calculation. This part should go to its specific section.
Specific comments
L56: I think citing Cook et al. (2016) is important.
L63: This is the first time that the acronym GVIIS is used (excluding the abstract). Define it here instead of defining on the next line.
L65: I would change the order and remove the redundant definition of the acronym: "In terms of ice thickness, George VI Ice Shelf (Fig. 1), the largest ice shelf on the western AP, appears to be…". I think it will improve the reading flow.
L72: Calling a 0.5 increase of 78.5 is too strong. furthermore, the precision of 79 is lower than 78.5, which would be rounded to 79. You also need to take into account the error. I would avoid calling this change an increase.
L82: Do you think citing a specific figure from the Schannwell publication is necessary? I checked their figure and it did not explain more. Instead, consider adding a citation to your previous claim (namely "..have distinct structure, topographic settings and connectivity to the Bellingshausen Sea").
L93: I did not understand the sentence "This complexity has led to uncertainty in the greatest risks to GVIIS". Please, rephrase.
L107 – 111: Consider removing this information: "with the onset of retreat... limited paleo proxies exist south of GVIIS"
L142: I think a sentence must be added to explain why and how the flow lines of the middle cross the whole shelf. Does all the ice mass disappear through melting?
L144: Are the "black boxes" actually yellow?
L144: I would change "20x10" to "around 20x10", since they are not always the same.
L144: "km extent" should go inside the parentheses.
L168: I would put the years in subscript.
L173: Clarify why you are not interested in velocities too slow or too fast.
L174: Change "because of" to "due to".
186: This section is missing references, and it is confusing. You should better explain why equation 2 is important for your work. It should also be combined with the information of the second invariant of the strain rate tensor, because then you can use Equation 2 to invert from observations to strain rate. In general, this subsection must be rewritten.
L189: Add a reference to the vertically-integrated mass-conservation equation.
L190: H is thickness, not thickness change.
L191: Justify why you can assume that they are the same. e.g. fast flowing regions near the terminus are dominated by basal sliding.
L202: The word "change" is underlined.
L205: How did you generate the streamlines?
L210: Please, make a reference for the ice density, This value is for pure ice. Most of the discharge calculations assume 900 kg m⁻³, since some air is always trapped in the ice.
L211: Is it the first time that this method is used? If not, provide a reference. I am wondering how precise it is. Averaging the thickness and the velocity loses a lot of information. Why you did not use the flux gate method (e.g. Shahateet et al. 2023) instead? You have all the required information for that.
L212: I think years in subscript would be better.
L225: The original Shallow-Shelf Approximation (MacAyeal, 1989) assumes no basal drag. Please, clarify how you introduce the basal drag or provide the reference for that. Bueler and Brown (2019) can be helpful.
L241: Bigger integral symbols.
L278: 8% increase is not much. An uncertainty estimation would be nice to compare the signal with the noise.
L291: There is no legend for the colors of the lines. Figure 2c is not well explained. The grounding line is at the same distance for 3(2?) different glacier?
L331: This section is more methodological.
L348: How did you calculate the error? Its method is in discussion, and I was wondering for a long time how you calculated the error, since it is expected to be in methods. Furthermore, a sentence discussing the high values of the uncertainty compared to the total change of F is desirable.
L353: Again, the uncertainty of the "2 m a⁻¹" is important.
L354: Please, cite the "previous studies" you are referring to.
L356: A legend on top of the scale bars would be helpful. For example, "point colors", "field colors".
L392: Please, add uncertainty.
L397: I would expect the uncertainty calculation to be presented in methods, not here. Also, add a reference to the equation.
L402: A legend on top of the scale bars would be helpful. Otherwise, the legend of the figure is incomplete.
L411: Idem L397.
L426: I would make clear that the simulation was made by you, starting the sentence with: "Our simulation experiment shows that…"
L438: Is this "2 m a⁻¹" a mean value? If so, say it. Also, present the uncertainty.
References of my comments:
Bueler E, and Brown J (2019), Shallow shelf approximation as a “sliding law” in a thermomechanically coupled ice sheet model, J. Geophys. Res., 114, F03008, doi:10.1029/2008JF001179.
Cook AJ, Holland PR, Meredith MP, Murray T, Luckman A and Vaughan DG (2016) Ocean forcing of glacier retreat in the western Antarctic Peninsula. Science, 353(6296), 283–286, ISSN 10959203 (doi: 10.1126/science.aae0017)
Shahateet K, Navarro F, Seehaus T, Fürst JJ, Braun M. Estimating ice discharge of the Antarctic Peninsula using different ice-thickness datasets. Annals of Glaciology. 2023;64(91):121-132. doi:10.1017/aog.2023.67
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1564-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-1564', Anonymous Referee #2, 03 Oct 2024
Review: ‘Increased Grounding Zone Ice Flux and Dynamic Thinning Creates Vulnerable Regions on George VI Ice Shelf, Antarctic Peninsula’, Das et al. 2024
This paper studies dynamic changes on the George VI Ice Shelf and their impact on the dynamic thinning of the ice shelf and hence its future stability. The authors use a combination of publicly available remote sensing datasets and bespoke ice sheet modelling runs to investigate how the shelf may respond to an increase in grounded ice flow.
The hypothesis that the authors set out to investigate is an interesting and worthwhile research question which I am confident will be of interest to the glaciology community. The overall experimental design is sound in principle; however, I have a number of major concerns with the choice of datasets for this study, the treatment of uncertainties, the comparisons between modelling and observations, and the quality of the presentation of the results. I have summarized these as major comments supported by line-by-line comments below.
Major comments:
- Ice velocity data: The authors should explain their choice and processing of ice velocity data in more detail to justify why it is suitable for this study. In particular, no detail is given on how the ITS_LIVE velocity mosaics the study uses are processed and produced. I know that this is detailed by the Gardiner et al. 2018 paper, however I think it is important to provide some level of detail in the manuscript for the reader, because since that paper came out in 2018, there are a number of new ITS_LIVE products available (Lei et al., 2022). I assume the authors have used the LandSat mosaics from the 2018 paper, not other products with SAR data included, but this is not clear, so more detail is needed. Did the authors consider other ice velocity products for Antarctica, for example the MeASUREs annual mosaics (Mouginot et al., 2017) or monthly mosaics from ENVEO for the ESA CCI project (https://cryoportal.enveo.at/data/)? The authors must also justify their choices to exclude velocities below 1 m/a and above 2000 m/a and where the error is > 15 m/a. What is the impact of these exclusions, what % of data points does it remove?
For ice discharge calculations, the authors have not attempted to account for firn air content changes, nor ice thickness changes between 2013 and 2018. Any potential ice thickness change could be evaluated from publicly available altimetry datasets. I think it is important to consider ice thickness change, because a significant focus of this paper is dynamic thinning. At the very least, the authors should justify their choice not to account for these terms. - Comparison between observations and modelling: Overall in this manuscript, I feel that the comparison between observations and modelling could be significantly improved and the links between the two made more explicit. In particular, it would be beneficial to report the difference in C between the 2013 and 2018 Ua inversions. This would provide context for changing the parameter C by 5%. Currently, I am not sure if 5% variance is a large amount or a small amount for this model setup.
I am further concerned that the modelled strain rates for 2013 and 2018 (Figure 3c & 3d) appear to contradict the conclusions of the paper. This plot shows a positive change in strain rate between 2013 and 2018 for the northern GVIIS around Ryder glacier ie a decrease in compression, however there was an increase in velocity and discharge in the observations in this period (Figure 4, line 300). Can the authors explain how this is consistent with their conclusion than increased ice discharge increases compressive stress for the NGVIIS? Additional plots of ice velocity and ice velocity change between Ua runs may help to clarify this point. - Errors and uncertainties: Throughout the paper, the presentation of errors and uncertainties is lacking and inconsistent. Quantities are often quoted without an accompanying uncertainty, including in parts of the manuscript where these values are important to the conclusions. See line-by-line comments below.
- Presentation: The quality of the figures in this manuscript is somewhat disappointing, with missing or incorrect keys and subplot labels. Additionally, the referencing throughout the manuscript falls well below the standard I would expect for The Cryosphere. In numerous places, significant statements are made without justification or supporting references. The authors must address this for the manuscript to be suitable for publication in The Cryosphere.
Line-by-line comments:
55: I think you also need to cite: ‘Ocean forcing of glacier retreat in the western Antarctic Peninsula’ Cook et al. 2016.
55: This sentence and the previous one together are a bit confusing. Does the retreat refer to tidewater glaciers, ice shelves, or both? Consider clarifying. The authors should also discuss how atmospheric warming has also been linked to retreat here. For example the fact that the collapse of ice shelves on the AP was primary linked to atmospheric warming, melt ponding and hydrofracture (Rack and Rott, 2004; Rignot et al., 2004; Vaughan and Doake, 1996).
56: I’m not sure that the Hogg and Gudmundsson paper cited here is the right paper, because it’s about the calving of a giant iceberg from the Larsen-C ice shelf. Did the authors mean to cite: ‘Increased ice flow in Western Palmer Land linked to ocean melting’ by Hogg et al. 2017?
57: Other useful references for the ocean induced retreat and acceleration of tidewater glaciers on the west AP: Ocean forcing of glacier retreat in the western Antarctic Peninsula, Cook et al. 2016. Ocean warming drives rapid dynamic activation of marine terminating glacier on the west Antarctic Peninsula, Wallis et al. 2023. Widespread increase in discharge from west Antarctic Peninsula glaciers since 2018, Davison et al. 2024.
63: The authors might also consider citing the references above here and also: ‘Recent dynamic changes on Fleming Glacier after the disintegration of Wordie Ice Shelf, Antarctic Peninsula’, Friedl et al. 2018.
63: The Wallis paper referenced here is about seasonal ice speed variations in the west AP, rather than widespread acceleration. A better reference might be: ‘Widespread increase in discharge from west Antarctic Peninsula glaciers since 2018’ Davison et al. 2024.
70: Again, I think this is the wrong Hogg citation.
72: These discharge figures should be quoted with an error. Also I don’t think it’s fair to call this an increase when 0.5 Gt is likely well within the uncertainty of these measurements.
85: Please reference a paper or bed elevation dataset for these statements about the height of the glacier beds.
87-91: The sentence ‘Strong gradients…’ needs substantial references to back it up, otherwise it is too vague. The authors could consider citing: ‘Drivers of Seasonal Land-Ice-Flow Variability in the Antarctic Peninsula’ Boxall et al. 2024, but I think more references than just this will be needed to back up this statement.
119: Substantially more references are needed to back up these statements on upstream processes, for example no reference is given for enhanced lubrication of the bed by surface meltwater penetration.
131: This sentence about the thinning of the GVIIS needs expanding. The authors say that measurements suggest a net thinning, but it’s within the range of uncertainty. Likewise, on line 65 in the intro the authors say GVIIS appears to be thinning, but do not mention the range of uncertainty. I think it would be much clearer for the reader if the authors directly quoted the thinning rates and uncertainty measured by previous studies and discussed the spatial distribution of melt rates. This would allow the reader to draw a more informed conclusion about the significance of observed melt rates.
140: This statement about MISI should be supported by a reference.
142 Figure 1: It would be beneficial to also show the whole ITS_LIVE velocity field that these streamlines are extracted from. This could be done in a supplementary figure.
142 Figure 1: The coordinates for this figure are not useful without saying which coordinate reference system is being used. I assume that for this plot it is EPSG:3031. This should be explicitly stated, as other polar stereographic CRSs are available, or the authors should provide a Lat/Lon grid overlay.
142 Figure 1: The coastline and grounding line data used for this figure should be referenced in the caption, here and in other figures.
152: This section needs to be significantly expanded, see general comments.
161: This statement about which dynamic components are most likely to affect the stability of an ice shelf should be justified with references.
167: See general comment about ice velocity data used.
183: The authors should provide a more robust justification for their decision to exclude glaciers from Alexander Island. For example, by quantifying the difference in ice discharge or velocity.
189 equation 1: a is not defined.
190: Surely H is the ice thickness, not the change in ice thickness through time?
208: These boxes are yellow in Figure 1.
278: All these speed changes should be quoted with an uncertainty.
279: It would be good to show the absolute speed change on a map, too. This could be a supplementary figure.
292 Figure 2: What do the different colors mean in panel b/c?
292 Figure 2: the GL marker on panel c shouldn’t cross all the axis like this, it should match panel b.
307: This sentence is confusing, because it mentions the velocity increase for ERS and glaciers south, but then talks about meltwater at Ryder glacier. Please clarify.
309: I don’t think this reference to Pedley et al. supports the statement that meltwater may reach the bed at Ryder Glacier. This paper is about meltwater drainage from the surface of the ice shelf into the ocean at the shelf margin.
326 Figure 3: Subfigures are not labelled.
331: This paragraph repeats points from section 3.6. Consider merging these.
352: the figure of 2 m/a must be quoted with an uncertainty.
354: Which previous studies? This must be referenced appropriately.
357 Figure 4: The colormap chosen for ice flux change is confusing, because at first glace it appears to be divergent, like the colormap for thickness change, but actually it’s 0 to 30. Consider changing it to a non-diverging colormap.
382 Figure 5: It would be beneficial to also show ice velocity change due to modifying C.
388: This comparison is written in a confusing way and should be clarified. Are you saying that the seasonal velocity fluctuations observed by Boxall et al. are comparable to the overall acceleration measured in this paper between 2013 and 2018? Is this a fair comparison?
396: Details of error calculations should be in the methods or a supplement.
400: Does this standard deviation refer to the standard deviation within the averaging boxes? If yes, then using the error provided with the ice velocity or bed elevation products would be more suitable and those should be used if they are available.
434: Please explicitly quantify the change in strain rates for your experiment here. The conclusion of the paper relies on it.
451: The sentence ‘Similar warming…’ must be justified with refences.
References:
Boxall, K., Christie, F. D. W., Willis, I. C., Wuite, J., Nagler, T., and Scheiblauer, S.: Drivers of Seasonal Land-Ice-Flow Variability in the Antarctic Peninsula, Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 129, e2023JF007378, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JF007378, 2024.
Cook, A. J., Holland, P. R., Meredith, M. P., Murray, T., Luckman, A., and Vaughan, D. G.: Ocean forcing of glacier retreat in the western Antarctic Peninsula, Science, 353, 283–286, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aae0017, 2016.
Davison, B. J., Hogg, A. E., Moffat, C., Meredith, M. P., and Wallis, B. J.: Widespread increase in discharge from west Antarctic Peninsula glaciers since 2018, The Cryosphere, 18, 3237–3251, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-18-3237-2024, 2024.
Friedl, P., Seehaus, T. C., Wendt, A., Braun, M. H., and Höppner, K.: Recent dynamic changes on Fleming Glacier after the disintegration of Wordie Ice Shelf, Antarctic Peninsula, The Cryosphere, 12, 1347–1365, https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-1347-2018, 2018.
Hogg, A. E., Shepherd, A., Cornford, S. L., Briggs, K. H., Gourmelen, N., Graham, J. A., Joughin, I., Mouginot, J., Nagler, T., Payne, A. J., Rignot, E., and Wuite, J.: Increased ice flow in Western Palmer Land linked to ocean melting, Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 4159–4167, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL072110, 2017.
Lei, Y., Gardner, A. S., and Agram, P.: Processing methodology for the ITS_LIVE Sentinel-1 ice velocity products, Earth System Science Data, 14, 5111–5137, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-14-5111-2022, 2022.
Mouginot, J., Rignot, E., Scheuchl, B., and Millan, R.: Comprehensive Annual Ice Sheet Velocity Mapping Using Landsat-8, Sentinel-1, and RADARSAT-2 Data, Remote Sensing, 9, 364, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs9040364, 2017.
Rack, W. and Rott, H.: Pattern of retreat and disintegration of the Larsen B ice shelf, Antarctic Peninsula, Annals of Glaciology, 39, 505–510, https://doi.org/10.3189/172756404781814005, 2004.
Rignot, E., Casassa, G., Gogineni, P., Krabill, W., Rivera, A., and Thomas, R.: Accelerated ice discharge from the Antarctic Peninsula following the collapse of Larsen B ice shelf, Geophysical Research Letters, 31, L18401 1-4, https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GL020697, 2004.
Vaughan, D. G. and Doake, C. S. M.: Recent atmospheric warming and retreat of ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula, Nature, 379, 328–331, https://doi.org/10.1038/379328a0, 1996.
Wallis, B. J., Hogg, A. E., Meredith, M. P., Close, R., Hardy, D., McMillan, M., Wuite, J., Nagler, T., and Moffat, C.: Ocean warming drives rapid dynamic activation of marine-terminating glacier on the west Antarctic Peninsula, Nat Commun, 14, 7535, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-42970-4, 2023.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-1564-RC2 - Ice velocity data: The authors should explain their choice and processing of ice velocity data in more detail to justify why it is suitable for this study. In particular, no detail is given on how the ITS_LIVE velocity mosaics the study uses are processed and produced. I know that this is detailed by the Gardiner et al. 2018 paper, however I think it is important to provide some level of detail in the manuscript for the reader, because since that paper came out in 2018, there are a number of new ITS_LIVE products available (Lei et al., 2022). I assume the authors have used the LandSat mosaics from the 2018 paper, not other products with SAR data included, but this is not clear, so more detail is needed. Did the authors consider other ice velocity products for Antarctica, for example the MeASUREs annual mosaics (Mouginot et al., 2017) or monthly mosaics from ENVEO for the ESA CCI project (https://cryoportal.enveo.at/data/)? The authors must also justify their choices to exclude velocities below 1 m/a and above 2000 m/a and where the error is > 15 m/a. What is the impact of these exclusions, what % of data points does it remove?
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
291 | 61 | 88 | 440 | 12 | 10 |
- HTML: 291
- PDF: 61
- XML: 88
- Total: 440
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1