the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Realistic ice-shelf/ocean state estimates (RISE) of Antarctic basal melting and drivers
Abstract. Societal adaptation to rising sea levels requires robust projections of the Antarctic Ice Sheet’s retreat, particularly due to ocean-driven basal melting of its fringing ice shelves. Recent advances in ocean models that simulate ice-shelf melting offer an opportunity to reduce uncertainties in ice–ocean interactions. Here, we compare several community-contributed, circum-Antarctic ocean simulations to highlight inter-model differences, evaluate agreement with satellite-derived melt rates, and examine underlying physical processes. All but one simulation use a melting formulation depending on both thermal driving (T ⋆) and friction velocity (u⋆), which together represent the thermal and ocean current forcings at the ice–ocean interface. Simulated melt rates range from 650 to 1277 Gt year−1 (m = 0.45 − 0.91 m year−1), driven by variations in model resolution, parameterisations, and sub-ice shelf circulation. Freeze-to-melt ratios span 0.30 to 30.12 %, indicating large differences in how refreezing is represented. The multi-model mean (MMM) produces an averaged melt rate of 0.60 m year−1 from a net mass loss of 842.99 Gt year−1 (876.03 Gt year−1 melting and 33.05 Gt year−1 refreezing), yielding a freeze-to-melt ratio of 3.92 %. We define a thermo-kinematic melt sensitivity, ζ = m/(T ⋆ u⋆) = 4.82 × 10−5 °C−1 for the MMM, with individual models spanning 2.85 × 10−5 to 19.4 × 10−5 °C−1. Higher melt rates typically occur near grounding zones where both T ⋆ and u⋆ exert roughly equal influence. Because friction velocity is critical for turbulent heat exchange, ice-shelf melting must be characterised by both ocean energetics and thermal forcing. Further work to standardise model setups and evaluation of results against in situ observations and satellite data will be essential for increasing model accuracy, reducing uncertainties, to improve our understanding of ice-shelf–ocean interactions and refine sea-level rise predictions.
- Preprint
(8954 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(13452 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4047', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Mar 2025
reply
The authors present the multi-model mean (MMM) of ice shelf melt rates and other parameters that determine ice shelf melt rates. They claim that the MMM provides a useful comparison between different models and serves as a guideline for observations and modeling. However, I believe that the simulated ice shelf melt rate is a parameter that can be easily tuned by selecting appropriate coefficients, and the multi-model comparisons presented here are somewhat overstating and misleading. I believe more analyses can make this manuscript much more useful for the community. I suggest a major revision.
Major Comments
1. The authors discuss, for example, the comparison of simulated total melt with satellite-based estimates (e.g., between lines 325 and 337 and in Table 2). However, in global simulations like this, integrated melt rates are easily tunable parameters. I question the significance of this study's comparison of model outputs that are easily adjustable, rather than focusing on parameters that are more challenging to tune and simulate. I suggest that the authors add a paragraph explaining how the drag coefficients and heat and salt transfer coefficients are determined in all simulations.
2. To enhance the usefulness of the comparisons, I suggest addressing the following aspects (a-d). In the current version of the manuscript, the authors discuss bottom or vertically integrated ocean hydrography, which is not the best metric for determining ice shelf melt rates. I recommend presenting thermocline depths and vertical sections under major ice shelf cavities to illustrate how variations in hydrography lead to differences in simulated melt rates. Additionally, it is important to examine interannual and seasonal variability, discussing the extent of differences in these aspects.
(a) Integrated ice shelf melt rates for each individual ice shelf.
(b) Hydrographic conditions, particularly vertical sections within the ice shelf cavity or at the ice shelf front.
(c) Temporal variability of thermocline depth and its relationship to ice shelf melt rates.
(d) The processes governing ice shelf melt rates, such as thermocline depth variations, temperature changes, and other factors influencing ocean velocity.Minor Comments
1. I find that Antarctica's wide mean melt rate is not very intuitive. I suggest adding an integrated melt rate in Gt/yr.
2. Lines 79-82: Considering that the Antarctic ice shelf melt rate is an easily tuned parameter, I feel this is somewhat overstating the presented findings here "allows us to constrain both present and future ocean-driven impacts on Antarctica, and provide much needed evaluation with both satellite-derived and in situ estimates of ice shelf basal melt rates".
3. Lines 403–412: One of the main conclusions of this multi-model comparison is the strong dependence of both thermal driving and friction velocity on the melt rate—concepts that have already been well established in numerous previous studies. While this study represents a first attempt at presenting a multi-model mean, I do not believe that there are more useful comparisons metrics that are not presented in the current version of the manuscript.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4047-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
125 | 42 | 6 | 173 | 17 | 7 | 8 |
- HTML: 125
- PDF: 42
- XML: 6
- Total: 173
- Supplement: 17
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 56 | 32 |
Australia | 2 | 24 | 13 |
China | 3 | 13 | 7 |
Germany | 4 | 12 | 6 |
France | 5 | 9 | 5 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 56