the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Love number computation within the Ice-sheet and Sea-level System Model (ISSM v4.24)
Abstract. The Love number solver presented here is a new capability within the Ice-sheet and Sea-level System Model (ISSM) for computing the solid-Earth response to tidal forcing and surface mass loading. This new capability allows solving zero-frequency free oscillation equations of motion decomposed into the well-known yi system and enables high wave number computations with spherical harmonic truncation degree of ~10,000 and above. It facilitates capturing the high-resolution response of the solid Earth to a step-function forcing in terms of gravity potential changes, vertical and horizontal bedrock displacement, and polar motion. The model incorporates compressible isotropic elasticity and three forms of linear viscoelasticity for mantle rheology: the Maxwell, Burgers, and Extended Burgers Materials (EBM). We detail our approach to the paralellization and numerical optimization of the solver, and report the accuracy of our results with respect to community benchmark solutions. Our main motivation is to facilitate simulations of a coupled system of surface mass transport (e.g., changes in polar ice sheets and sea level) and solid Earth models at kilometer-scale lateral resolutions with numerical efficiency that supports the exploration of large model ensembles and uncertainty quantification.
- Preprint
(1618 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(92 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3414', Anonymous Referee #1, 17 Mar 2025
reply
General comments
This manuscript describes a new capability for evaluating viscoelastic Love Numbers that has been built within the ISSM coupled ice sheet modeling framework. The new functionality allows to model the solid Earth response to surface loads up to very short wavelengths, and supports different rheological laws including the EBM transient model. The manuscript is very well written, it is technically sound and discusses in detail a comprehensive set of benchmarks with community reference solutions for incompressible LNs in order to validate the numerical approach. The authors also devoted considerable effort in improving the code efficiency, in view of its possible applications to ensemble modeling or Bayesian inversion frameworks, hence I believe that this new tool will be of great relevance for the GIA community. I have just one major point that in my opinion should be addressed before recommending publication, which is illustrated below.
Specific comments
My main (and only) concern about the manuscript is about the stability of the approach discussed in the paper in the case of compressible models. A compressible self-gravitating model is known to be affected by gravitational instabilities both in the elastic and viscoelastic regimes (see e.g. Hanyk et al., 1999 or Vermeersen and Mitrovica, 2000) which, from a mathematical point of view, manifest themselves as singularities in the Laplace-transformed solution on the real positive axis. Within the classic framework of viscoelastic normal modes those correspond to exponentially growing modes, which are usually dropped since their timescale is generally much larger than those of interest for GIA, and only stable modes associated with singularities on the real negative axis are kept to evaluate the time-domain solution. However, if the time-domain LNs are computed according to eq (35), there is effectively no way to filter out those modes (since the individual modes are not identified at all, which is one the main advantages of the proposed method), and therefore it is possible that the Laplace solution is sampled near a singular point, which would break the inversion scheme. I do not have any specific suggestion about how this problem can be circumvented, but I think that it is an important aspect that would merit some discussion.
Minor points:
Page 9, equation 17: For a tidal forcing, the gravity potential is computed without considering the direct term (i.e. on the r.h.s. ‘k’ is used instead of ‘1+k’). Is it to be compliant with the GRACE convention for the definition of potential, in which the direct term is not included? If this is the case, I suggest making this point explicit.
Page 17, lines 335-340: the “pseudo-fluid Love numbers” and the “degree nvmax where the viscous part of the LNs becomes negligible” are first mentioned here, but the meaning of those concepts is made explicit only in section 5 below. Maybe it could be beneficial to the reader if a few more words are given here about those two points, anticipating that they will be discussed in more detail in section 5.
Technical corrections
Page 3, line 75: Missing period after the reference to Kierulf et al.
Page 4, line 92: maybe βtn should read βt1/n, or n ≅ 3 should be n ≅ 1/3 ?
Page 7, line 122: “an mantle” -> “a mantle” (or “a solid mantle”?)
Page 12, line 123: my understanding is that rn should be r-n
Page 15, line 290: “This methods” -> “This method”
Page 21, line 357: “theses” -> “these”
Page 25, lines 439-440: “point to with” -> “point to”
Please note that some entries in the bibliography are missing the DOI.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3414-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
111 | 200 | 6 | 317 | 17 | 5 | 5 |
- HTML: 111
- PDF: 200
- XML: 6
- Total: 317
- Supplement: 17
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
Brazil | 1 | 130 | 42 |
United States of America | 2 | 74 | 24 |
China | 3 | 19 | 6 |
France | 4 | 11 | 3 |
Germany | 5 | 10 | 3 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 130