the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Exploring the sensitivity of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets at the last two glacial maxima to coupled climate-ice sheet model parameters
Abstract. Simulations of past periods are useful for testing the ability of numerical models to simulate ice sheet changes under significantly different climate conditions to present day. This can help improve projections of future sea level rise made by these same models and avoid over-tuning to particular (e.g. modern) stationary climate conditions. The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM; ~21 thousand years ago (ka)) has been extensively used for this purpose since it is relatively well constrained by empirical evidence. However, less is known about the Penultimate Glacial Maximum (PGM; ~140 ka) and why the vast ice sheets covering much of the Northern Hemisphere (NH), differed to the LGM. The answer likely lies, at least in part, in the different orbital configurations between the two periods, and the resulting impact on climate-ice sheet interactions.
Here, we perform and compare the first large ensembles of coupled climate-ice sheet (FAMOUS-BISICLES) simulations of the LGM and PGM to better understand how NH ice sheets interact with the climate and quantify how sensitive the simulations are to the choice of uncertain model inputs, including physical parameter values. Specifically, we vary 12 uncertain parameters that control the model representations of ice sheet albedo, ice dynamics and climate. The ensembles are evaluated against palaeo-evidence of global mean temperature, ice volume and extent to calibrate the model and find combinations of parameters that simultaneously yield plausible ice sheets and climates for both periods. The sensitivity of the North American ice sheet and the Eurasian ice sheet during the LGM and PGM, to each of the 12 parameter values, is explored using Gaussian Process emulators to perform a Sobol sensitivity analysis. From the whole ensemble, we find two simulations that meet our evaluation constraints for the LGM ice sheets. The parameter values that influence the albedo of the ice sheet have the largest influence on the resulting ice sheet volumes, but several other parameters display different sensitivity indices depending on the ice sheet (North American versus Eurasian) and time period (PGM versus LGM). This includes parameters that affect the cloud liquid water, lapse rate, basal sliding and downscaling elevation heights.
- Preprint
(5198 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(501 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 28 Mar 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-3896', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Mar 2025
reply
Review of Patterson and others:
“Exploring the sensitivity of the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets at the last two glacial maxima to coupled climate-ice sheet model parameters”
Summary:
The authors investigate the sensitivity of key parameters in a new coupled climate-ice sheet model, FAMOUS-BISICLES, for simulating the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets at two glacial maxima. They conduct large ensemble simulations and evaluate the results against paleo-evidence of global mean temperature, ice volume and ice extent. To achieve this, they use Gaussian Process emulators and perform a Sobol sensitivity analysis. They finally identify two simulations that satisfy their evaluation constraints for the LGM and PGM.
General comments:
The study demonstrates valuable improvements in using the coupled ice sheet-climate model, FAMOUS-BISICLES, to better simulate the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets during various glacial periods, and highlights key parameters. However, beyond the tuning process and model parameter study, I do not see significant new findings. Therefore, please investigate further the new insights related to simulating the last two glacial maxima. Otherwise, the work may be more suitable for a model development journal.
The structure and logic of the study need to be improved for greater clarity, and the sentences could be more concise. The Introduction and Methods sections are somehow redundant. Moreover, I would suggest separating the Results and Discussion section to improve clarity and organization.
In the introduction, the authors discuss various uncertainties in reconstructing the PGM ice sheets and the possible reasons for the differences between the PGM and LGM ice sheets. However, it is unclear how these discussions are linked to the final conclusion, as the reason for the differences between the PGM and LGM ice sheets are not investigated in this study.
I’m not sure if it is appropriate to use “coupled climate-ice sheet” in the title, given that the ocean is prescribed, and the active components are only the atmosphere and the ice sheet.
Specific comments:
Line 16-18: The background introduction in the abstract is somewhat redundant and somewhat off-topic. The authors suggest that the answer likely lies in “the different orbital configurations between the two periods” and “climate-ice sheet interactions”. However, the manuscript does not address the differences in orbital configurations or climate-ice sheet interactions.
Line 20: “better understand how NH ice sheets interact with the climate”. However, the manuscript does not examine the interaction between the ice sheets and the climate. Instead, the parameters investigated in the model mainly focus on downscaling or factors that influence ice sheet surface/basal processes.
Line 26-30: What does the statement “… we find two simulations …” indicate? Does it suggest that the parameter criteria for simulating the LGM/PGM ice sheets are too strict? Otherwise remove this sentence. Additionally, please clarify the following sentence by specifying which parameters are more sensitive to which ice sheet or time period.
Line 180 and beyond: It is somewhat odd that you claim BISICLES is a model well-suited to simulate the past evolution of marine ice sheets, yet in the experiment setup, the ocean is prescribed and not investigated.
Figure 1a-b: Please also include the difference in SST between the LGM and PGM.
Line 413-416: Are the differences in the mean values for the different ice sheets at the LGM or PGM likely due to the different initial conditions? The same question applies to the spatial pattern (Line 418-421). Additionally, please elaborate on what these calculations indicate.
Figure 6-7: Maybe use a different colormap to display the ice thickness pattern. Currently, it is difficult to identify the simulated margin.
Line 517-518 and beyond: Please explicitly indicate what “tgrad” and “drain” refer to, and explain what their indications are. The same applies to the rest of the manuscript (e.g., Line 558, 544, 562…)
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-3896-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
121 | 44 | 6 | 171 | 24 | 3 | 5 |
- HTML: 121
- PDF: 44
- XML: 6
- Total: 171
- Supplement: 24
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 5
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 70 | 40 |
United Kingdom | 2 | 21 | 12 |
Germany | 3 | 14 | 8 |
France | 4 | 10 | 5 |
India | 5 | 8 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 70