Large scale climate response of the Southern Ocean and Antarctica to reduced ice sheets

Power, Katherine; Matos, Fernanda; Zhang, Qiong

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061

Preprints

04 Feb 2025

| 04 Feb 2025

Large scale climate response of the Southern Ocean and Antarctica to reduced ice sheets

Katherine Power, Fernanda Matos, and Qiong Zhang

Abstract. The Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets (AIS and GIS) are critical tipping points in the Earth's climate system. Their potential collapse could trigger cascading effects, significantly alter the global climate patterns, and cause large-scale, long-lasting, and potentially irreversible changes within human timescales. This study investigates the large-scale climate response of the Southern Ocean and Antarctica to the isolated effect of reducing ice sheet extent. Using well-documented paleogeography of the Late Pliocene (LP) from the PRISM4D reconstruction, where the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) and the northwestern GIS were significantly diminished, we conducted 1450-year simulations with the EC-Earth3 model at atmospheric CO₂ concentrations of 280 ppmv and 400 ppmv.

Our results reveal that the implementation of the LP ice sheet configuration leads to a 9.5 °C rise in surface air temperature, approximately 16 % reduction in sea ice concentration, and a 0.63 mm/day increase in precipitation over Antarctica and the Southern Ocean. These changes far exceed those driven by CO₂ increase alone, which result in a 2.5 °C warming and a 9.3 % sea ice decline. Throughout the simulations, the positive phase of the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) persists, intensifying westerly winds and contributing to sea ice export and deep ocean warming. The combined effects of ice sheet reduction and CO₂ forcing initially weakened Antarctic Bottom Water formation, with major implications for the Global Meridional Overturning Circulation due to stronger water column stratification driven by surface freshening and subsurface warming.

By isolating the direct albedo effect of reducing GIS and AIS extents, this study offers critical insights into the mechanisms driving atmospheric and oceanic variability around Antarctica and their broader implications for global climate dynamics. Although the complete Late Pliocene boundary conditions may serve as a valuable analogue for current and future climate change, excluding the orographic changes allows us to specifically assess the primary role of surface reflectivity. This targeted approach lays the groundwork for future research to explore how the combined effects of albedo and paleogeographical changes could influence interhemispheric climate feedbacks under scenarios of future ice sheet collapse or instability.

Received: 20 Dec 2024 – Discussion started: 04 Feb 2025

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 paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.

Download & links

Preprint (PDF, 4644 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 (4644 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 Oct 2025

Late Pliocene ice sheets as an analogue for future climate: a sensitivity study of the polar Southern Hemisphere

Katherine Power, Fernanda DI Alzira Oliveira Matos, and Qiong Zhang

Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1845–1863, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1845-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1845-2025, 2025

Short summary

Katherine Power, Fernanda Matos, and Qiong Zhang

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Review of egusphere-2024-4061', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Mar 2025
Power et al. assess the high southern latitude climatic impacts of changes in albedo resulting from a smaller (Late Pliocene) Antarctic ice-sheet. This is an interesting study, relevant for past climates and potential future. Some revisions are however necessary before publication.
It should be made clearer in the title and first part of the abstract that only albedo changes and not orographic changes are taken into account.

Improved methods: It might be helpful to include a table of the experiments performed with the forcing included. I am actually surprised to see changes in albedo over the East Antarctic ice-sheet in fig. 2d. It is my understanding the ice-sheet is a forcing in this simulation, and thus the albedo over the ice-sheet imposed. Can the authors explain why albedo is changing over land areas where the ice-sheet forcing should not have changed?

Improved analysis:

106: the authors state that “when ice-sheet reductions are included there is a persistent positive phase of the SAM, which intensify the westerly winds”
On Figure 4, timeseries of SAM indices are shown for all the experiments (note that the x axis is missing), and in all cases the SAM index is much lower in the Ei than E case. So the SAM index is less positive when the ice-sheet reductions are taken into account contrarily to the statement above. I note that even in the PI case (E280), the SAM index is centered on 0.2, which seems odd. The authors should double check their results and include a description of their SAM index calculation.
114-115: the authors state that there is a “deepening of the Amundsen sea low with stronger winds and stormier conditions”, but this is not shown and it sounds to me more like a simple description of what is expected under positive SAM than in the simulations presented. If you want to keep that statement, then please show the changes in SLP or geopg in a more convincing way as this is really not evident from Fig. 3 c,d. In addition, the two statement above are contrary to the statement L.163-164: “our simulations do not indicate significant changes in the wind regime over Antarctic and the Southern Ocean.” These contradictory statements and figures suggest that the authors need to carefully look at their results and assess whether there are significant changes in the winds or not. Please show the wind changes.
118: The authors suggest that the poleward contraction of the westerlies amplifies the upwelling, which accelerates sea-ice melting from below. Related to the comment above, are there significant changes in the westerlies in your simulations? Please show the wind and upwelling changes.
Figure 5 does not seem appropriate to discuss AABW changes. I) the AABW in E280 should be shown. Ii) the AABW taken through this calculation seems really low and does not seem to reflect the lower limb of the MOC as seen on Figure 7. Is your value of the global stream function south of 60S and below 500m even negative (ie anticlockwise circulation)? In fact, on your figure 7, the lower limb of the MOC does seem weaker in Ei400 than E400. Coarse resolution models do have issues representing AABW formation, and on Figure 7, there does not seem to be any downwelling branch south of 60S (ie anti-clockwise circulation south of 60S). Please re-assess your statements L. 153-156.
170-174: I am confused about this paragraph. Is this a statement based on what has been shown in previous studies or based on the authors’ results? If the former, then references are critically needed. If the latter, then this should be shown as it does not seem to be what is obtained here (ie SAM is less positive when the albedo decreases over Antarctica), and references to the figures where it is shown should be included.
4. An improved discussion of the results in comparison to previous studies is needed.
For example, previous studies looking into the mid-Pliocene (Weiffenbach et al., 2023, Climate Past, https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1067/2024) and Last Interglacial (Yeung et al., 2024, Com. Earth & Env., https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01383-x) highlighted the impact of Southern Ocean warming and reduced sea-ice on stratification and AABW formation, with potential feedbacks on the AIS.
The impact of AIS loss on climate was also studied in Hutchinson et al., 2024 (Nat. Com., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45501-x). While in that study, changes in orography were also taken into account, it seems relevant to include this study in the discussion as the climatic impact seems much smaller in Hutchinson et al than in your study.
5. Line by line comments:
60, 61: Please include the references to the mid-holocene, Last interglacial and mid-Pliocene simulations.
124: If I understand correctly, there is no ice-sheet model. Marine ice sheet instabilities parametrization is only relevant for ice-sheet models.
Legend of figure 5: Please include the area or latitudinal band of the Southern Ocean that was used for this graph.
131: the reason for the interannual to decadal variability is not shown here, so this seems like a speculation and it does not seem relevant to the study.
163-164: Please re-assess if this correct after looking into the wind changes (see comment 3 above).
203-208: this paragraph might need to be a bit modified. Even though there are some uncertainties associated with Antarctic topography after the loss of WAIS, it seems that it would be more consistent to do so. I have no problem with the study only looking at the impact of changes in albedo, but the authors have to acknowledge that assessing the impact changes in orography is also important.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Katherine Power, 10 Apr 2025
  
  See file attached for response to reviewer 1.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-4061', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Mar 2025
Review of Power et al “Large scale climate response to the Southern Ocean and Antarctica to reduced ice sheets”
In this paper, the authors use the EC-Earth climate model to test the impacts of reduced albedo under Late Pliocene ice sheet configurations to the climate system. Experiments also include the impacts of elevated greenhouse gas levels. While the topic is of great interest, I have several big-picture concerns, specifically about the internal consistency of the experiments presented here.
First, it is unclear what boundary conditions the authors are using for these experiments. In Section 2.2 (Experiment setup), the authors state they are using the PlioMIP 4F Tier 2 experiments (Line 78). PlioMIP uses Pliocene boundary conditions of the ice sheets, including modified ice sheet extent and orography and other changes associated with a reduced ice sheet and warm period, such as changes to vegetation and GHGs etc. However, the previous paragraph (L75) the authors state that they exclude orographic changes and freshwater input associated with the ice sheet extent. If indeed orographic and freshwater changes are not included in these experiments, it remains unclear to me how these changes were implemented in the model. What albedo was chosen in places where West Antarctica or Greenland are longer “ice”? How are these grid cells treated, presumably as land? What albedo is used in these locations? More clarification and explanation is required. Thereafter throughout the manuscript, the authors often refer to using a Pliocene ice sheet configuration, and that such a configuration serves as an analogue of future configurations. The term ‘configuration’ implies that all relevant elements of that configuration have changed, including orography (e.g. L196). Better explanation and justification is needed on experiment design, and care must be taken when using terms like ‘configuration’ and ‘reduced ice sheet extent’ throughout, especially if this is not what the experiment is actually doing.
If I understand correctly, only albedo is being modified in these experiments. I am struggling with the rationale and relevance for such an experiment. Keeping a modern AIS/GrIS topography, but reducing albedo to match Pliocene ice extent results in inconsistent boundary conditions. You cannot collapse WAIS as in Figure 1 but maintain modern topography. If WAIS is ice-free this implies it is collapsed. Therefore, not only is the orography fundamentally different, but also ocean pathways between the Ross, Amundsen and Weddell Seas open up, leading to different ocean circulation, sea ice regimes and atmospheric circulation (e.g. Steig et al (2015), Pauling et al (2023)). Therefore, much of the analyses presented here (changes in sea ice regime, SAM index, albedo, surface air temperatures and precipitation) is limited by the presence of land above sea level in West Antarctica, and drawing conclusions about those elements of the climate system would be inaccurate.
If the goal of the study is to ask how the Southern Ocean and AIS climate responds to reduced ice sheets (as in the manuscript title), this experimental design cannot answer that question. Instead, it seems to me that the authors are asking what the impact would be if WAIS was suddenly painted black (or whatever low ocean/land albedo is being used here). If that is the question, please justify. To isolate the effect of albedo a better tool might be a simple global energy balance model. This would also resolve the authors’ technical issues with modifying the atmospheric component of the model when modifying orography (though I will note this is technically possible and not uncommon (see PlioMIP experiments)). Another option would be to use the current experiments, but rather than comparing to a PI control run, also compare this simulation to a run where the full configuration of the ice sheets is changed (including orography). This would allow the authors to better detangle the role of albedo-only changes, by comparing to cases with and without orography change.
Once these big picture issues are taken care of, there are a number of other issues throughout the paper that I recommend addressing. For example:
As mentioned above, the title does not accurately represent this work – you are not actually reducing ice sheet extents in these experiments

The abstract needs work to make connections clearer and providing appropriate motivation for the experiment.

As mentioned above, the experiment design (Section 2) should include a more comprehensive description of the experiments and implementation.

Figures need to be better labeled. For example, Figure 1 should have labels, and the caption should explain more. Consider also including a cross section of the orography for the two ice sheets.

Figure 2 it is unclear why albedo is spatially variable in the Ei experiment. This is confusing.

There are some claims throughout, such as the stability of ice sheets being increasingly at risk, please provide appropriate citations for these.

Usually Greenland Ice Sheet is abbreviated as GrIS rather than GIS.

Include references when discussing EC-Earth’s proven capabilities.

The discussion requires more work, more context, and some of the concluding claims are not well-supported. For example, it is not clear how this experiment will help identify early signals of ice sheet retreat and possibly ice sheet instabilities because this study does not include a dynamical ice sheet.

References
Steig, Eric J., Kathleen Huybers, Hansi A. Singh, Nathan J. Steiger, Qinghua Ding, Dargan MW Frierson, Trevor Popp, and James WC White. "Influence of West Antarctic ice sheet collapse on Antarctic surface climate." Geophysical Research Letters 42, no. 12 (2015): 4862-4868.
Pauling, Andrew G., Cecilia M. Bitz, and Eric J. Steig. "Linearity of the climate system response to raising and lowering West Antarctic and coastal Antarctic topography." Journal of Climate 36, no. 18 (2023): 6195-6212.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Katherine Power, 10 Apr 2025
  
  See attached full response to reviewer 2.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061-AC2

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

RC1:
'Review of egusphere-2024-4061', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Mar 2025
Power et al. assess the high southern latitude climatic impacts of changes in albedo resulting from a smaller (Late Pliocene) Antarctic ice-sheet. This is an interesting study, relevant for past climates and potential future. Some revisions are however necessary before publication.
It should be made clearer in the title and first part of the abstract that only albedo changes and not orographic changes are taken into account.

Improved methods: It might be helpful to include a table of the experiments performed with the forcing included. I am actually surprised to see changes in albedo over the East Antarctic ice-sheet in fig. 2d. It is my understanding the ice-sheet is a forcing in this simulation, and thus the albedo over the ice-sheet imposed. Can the authors explain why albedo is changing over land areas where the ice-sheet forcing should not have changed?

Improved analysis:

106: the authors state that “when ice-sheet reductions are included there is a persistent positive phase of the SAM, which intensify the westerly winds”
On Figure 4, timeseries of SAM indices are shown for all the experiments (note that the x axis is missing), and in all cases the SAM index is much lower in the Ei than E case. So the SAM index is less positive when the ice-sheet reductions are taken into account contrarily to the statement above. I note that even in the PI case (E280), the SAM index is centered on 0.2, which seems odd. The authors should double check their results and include a description of their SAM index calculation.
114-115: the authors state that there is a “deepening of the Amundsen sea low with stronger winds and stormier conditions”, but this is not shown and it sounds to me more like a simple description of what is expected under positive SAM than in the simulations presented. If you want to keep that statement, then please show the changes in SLP or geopg in a more convincing way as this is really not evident from Fig. 3 c,d. In addition, the two statement above are contrary to the statement L.163-164: “our simulations do not indicate significant changes in the wind regime over Antarctic and the Southern Ocean.” These contradictory statements and figures suggest that the authors need to carefully look at their results and assess whether there are significant changes in the winds or not. Please show the wind changes.
118: The authors suggest that the poleward contraction of the westerlies amplifies the upwelling, which accelerates sea-ice melting from below. Related to the comment above, are there significant changes in the westerlies in your simulations? Please show the wind and upwelling changes.
Figure 5 does not seem appropriate to discuss AABW changes. I) the AABW in E280 should be shown. Ii) the AABW taken through this calculation seems really low and does not seem to reflect the lower limb of the MOC as seen on Figure 7. Is your value of the global stream function south of 60S and below 500m even negative (ie anticlockwise circulation)? In fact, on your figure 7, the lower limb of the MOC does seem weaker in Ei400 than E400. Coarse resolution models do have issues representing AABW formation, and on Figure 7, there does not seem to be any downwelling branch south of 60S (ie anti-clockwise circulation south of 60S). Please re-assess your statements L. 153-156.
170-174: I am confused about this paragraph. Is this a statement based on what has been shown in previous studies or based on the authors’ results? If the former, then references are critically needed. If the latter, then this should be shown as it does not seem to be what is obtained here (ie SAM is less positive when the albedo decreases over Antarctica), and references to the figures where it is shown should be included.
4. An improved discussion of the results in comparison to previous studies is needed.
For example, previous studies looking into the mid-Pliocene (Weiffenbach et al., 2023, Climate Past, https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/20/1067/2024) and Last Interglacial (Yeung et al., 2024, Com. Earth & Env., https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-024-01383-x) highlighted the impact of Southern Ocean warming and reduced sea-ice on stratification and AABW formation, with potential feedbacks on the AIS.
The impact of AIS loss on climate was also studied in Hutchinson et al., 2024 (Nat. Com., https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-45501-x). While in that study, changes in orography were also taken into account, it seems relevant to include this study in the discussion as the climatic impact seems much smaller in Hutchinson et al than in your study.
5. Line by line comments:
60, 61: Please include the references to the mid-holocene, Last interglacial and mid-Pliocene simulations.
124: If I understand correctly, there is no ice-sheet model. Marine ice sheet instabilities parametrization is only relevant for ice-sheet models.
Legend of figure 5: Please include the area or latitudinal band of the Southern Ocean that was used for this graph.
131: the reason for the interannual to decadal variability is not shown here, so this seems like a speculation and it does not seem relevant to the study.
163-164: Please re-assess if this correct after looking into the wind changes (see comment 3 above).
203-208: this paragraph might need to be a bit modified. Even though there are some uncertainties associated with Antarctic topography after the loss of WAIS, it seems that it would be more consistent to do so. I have no problem with the study only looking at the impact of changes in albedo, but the authors have to acknowledge that assessing the impact changes in orography is also important.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Katherine Power, 10 Apr 2025
  
  See file attached for response to reviewer 1.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061-AC1
RC2:
'Comment on egusphere-2024-4061', Anonymous Referee #2, 18 Mar 2025
Review of Power et al “Large scale climate response to the Southern Ocean and Antarctica to reduced ice sheets”
In this paper, the authors use the EC-Earth climate model to test the impacts of reduced albedo under Late Pliocene ice sheet configurations to the climate system. Experiments also include the impacts of elevated greenhouse gas levels. While the topic is of great interest, I have several big-picture concerns, specifically about the internal consistency of the experiments presented here.
First, it is unclear what boundary conditions the authors are using for these experiments. In Section 2.2 (Experiment setup), the authors state they are using the PlioMIP 4F Tier 2 experiments (Line 78). PlioMIP uses Pliocene boundary conditions of the ice sheets, including modified ice sheet extent and orography and other changes associated with a reduced ice sheet and warm period, such as changes to vegetation and GHGs etc. However, the previous paragraph (L75) the authors state that they exclude orographic changes and freshwater input associated with the ice sheet extent. If indeed orographic and freshwater changes are not included in these experiments, it remains unclear to me how these changes were implemented in the model. What albedo was chosen in places where West Antarctica or Greenland are longer “ice”? How are these grid cells treated, presumably as land? What albedo is used in these locations? More clarification and explanation is required. Thereafter throughout the manuscript, the authors often refer to using a Pliocene ice sheet configuration, and that such a configuration serves as an analogue of future configurations. The term ‘configuration’ implies that all relevant elements of that configuration have changed, including orography (e.g. L196). Better explanation and justification is needed on experiment design, and care must be taken when using terms like ‘configuration’ and ‘reduced ice sheet extent’ throughout, especially if this is not what the experiment is actually doing.
If I understand correctly, only albedo is being modified in these experiments. I am struggling with the rationale and relevance for such an experiment. Keeping a modern AIS/GrIS topography, but reducing albedo to match Pliocene ice extent results in inconsistent boundary conditions. You cannot collapse WAIS as in Figure 1 but maintain modern topography. If WAIS is ice-free this implies it is collapsed. Therefore, not only is the orography fundamentally different, but also ocean pathways between the Ross, Amundsen and Weddell Seas open up, leading to different ocean circulation, sea ice regimes and atmospheric circulation (e.g. Steig et al (2015), Pauling et al (2023)). Therefore, much of the analyses presented here (changes in sea ice regime, SAM index, albedo, surface air temperatures and precipitation) is limited by the presence of land above sea level in West Antarctica, and drawing conclusions about those elements of the climate system would be inaccurate.
If the goal of the study is to ask how the Southern Ocean and AIS climate responds to reduced ice sheets (as in the manuscript title), this experimental design cannot answer that question. Instead, it seems to me that the authors are asking what the impact would be if WAIS was suddenly painted black (or whatever low ocean/land albedo is being used here). If that is the question, please justify. To isolate the effect of albedo a better tool might be a simple global energy balance model. This would also resolve the authors’ technical issues with modifying the atmospheric component of the model when modifying orography (though I will note this is technically possible and not uncommon (see PlioMIP experiments)). Another option would be to use the current experiments, but rather than comparing to a PI control run, also compare this simulation to a run where the full configuration of the ice sheets is changed (including orography). This would allow the authors to better detangle the role of albedo-only changes, by comparing to cases with and without orography change.
Once these big picture issues are taken care of, there are a number of other issues throughout the paper that I recommend addressing. For example:
As mentioned above, the title does not accurately represent this work – you are not actually reducing ice sheet extents in these experiments

The abstract needs work to make connections clearer and providing appropriate motivation for the experiment.

As mentioned above, the experiment design (Section 2) should include a more comprehensive description of the experiments and implementation.

Figures need to be better labeled. For example, Figure 1 should have labels, and the caption should explain more. Consider also including a cross section of the orography for the two ice sheets.

Figure 2 it is unclear why albedo is spatially variable in the Ei experiment. This is confusing.

There are some claims throughout, such as the stability of ice sheets being increasingly at risk, please provide appropriate citations for these.

Usually Greenland Ice Sheet is abbreviated as GrIS rather than GIS.

Include references when discussing EC-Earth’s proven capabilities.

The discussion requires more work, more context, and some of the concluding claims are not well-supported. For example, it is not clear how this experiment will help identify early signals of ice sheet retreat and possibly ice sheet instabilities because this study does not include a dynamical ice sheet.

References
Steig, Eric J., Kathleen Huybers, Hansi A. Singh, Nathan J. Steiger, Qinghua Ding, Dargan MW Frierson, Trevor Popp, and James WC White. "Influence of West Antarctic ice sheet collapse on Antarctic surface climate." Geophysical Research Letters 42, no. 12 (2015): 4862-4868.
Pauling, Andrew G., Cecilia M. Bitz, and Eric J. Steig. "Linearity of the climate system response to raising and lowering West Antarctic and coastal Antarctic topography." Journal of Climate 36, no. 18 (2023): 6195-6212.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Katherine Power, 10 Apr 2025
  
  See attached full response to reviewer 2.
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4061-AC2

Peer review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (17 Apr 2025) by Roland Séférian

AR by Katherine Power on behalf of the Authors (21 Apr 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Jul 2025) by Roland Séférian

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (14 Jul 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Second review of Power et al.

Power et al. significantly revised their manuscripts in light of the reviewers’ comments. They addressed most of my concerns by providing new analysis and clarifications.
Below I note a few additional minor comments to be addressed before publication.

Please note that I am commenting on the tracked changes version of the manuscript.

Abstract: Changes to GrIS are prominent in the abstract. I understand that the GrIS albedo was also changed, however it is not shown in the manuscript, and quite unclear whether GrIS changes contribute to the pSH climatic changes discussed in the manuscript. I am not saying that you should not mention GrIS changes, however if you do not think that GrIS changes impact the pSH, then you might tone down the GrIS in the abstract.

L. 30: “oceanic” circulation
L. 33: Is there really reduction of snowfall on the AIS and GrIS atm? There is more snowfall on EAIS. Please make sure this statement is precise.
L. 43: MIS5e is mentioned here at 125,000 yrs ago, while in the discussion you mention the LIG. Please pick one or the other and use it consistently throughout the manuscript, noting that the PMIP LIG timeslice is at 127ka.

Figure 1: What do the green lines represent? Please include it in the caption.
Figure 4: Some statistics on the SAM indices are needed as it is hard to compare the 3 simulations in this way.

L. 295-297: What do you make of this temperature increase at 1, 2 and 3km? It reads like you are linking it to the AABW change but without being explicit. At 2 and 3km, it just looks to me like a drift of the model (ie still trying to equilibrate to new conditions) and without link to AABW. Please also be more explicit with respect to the link between deep salinity and AABW. The downwelling AABW branch (counter clockwise circulation south of 60S) is not visible in Fig. 7, so I hope it is because of the smoothing used. My point: from fig. 7 it really looks like the AABW is much weaker in E400 and Ei400, but whether the AABW timeseries are correct is less clear. And what leads to the AABW recovery in Ei400 is even less clear.

L. 385-388: I have no problem with your experimental design, ie just changing the albedo, however I do not agree with stating that completely adjusting the AIS (and GrIS) to LP would lead to additional uncertainties, more over when you conclude (L 420) that the LP paleogeography should be implemented.

L. 404-405: Please be more precise with respect to the results of Gorte et al. Which time period are they looking at? Why do they simulate weaker AABW? … In general, a more precise text with clearer conclusions with respect to the mechanisms would be beneficial for the paragraph 397-406. ie you could more precisely summarise what previous studies concluded with respect to the impact of i) meltwater input in the SO, ii) changes in AIS topography, iii) changes in SO stratification due to SO warming. You can then compare the results from iii) with your results and implications from currently missed processes i and ii in your simulations.

L. 420-424: Instead of bullet points, these could be better linked to the text L. 397-406.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #3 (18 Jul 2025)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

This study by Powers et al provides some interesting results on the sensitivity of the climate of the southern high latitudes to changes in ice cover and CO2 which are useful for future climate change considerations.
The authors have made considerable efforts in responding to both reviewers comments and the manuscript now contains important clarifications of the experiment set up and boundary conditions used which was also one of the main comments of mine. They have also added in a more detailed analysis of the changes in SAM and atmospheric circulation including providing more supporting evidence for their findings, which helps readers better understand the results. The changes made to the title, abstract and introduction also more accurately reflect what is being investigated and provide more justification for why isolating the albedo effect is useful in the context of previous studies. I also appreciated the inclusion of a literature review in the introduction and a comparison to previous studies in the discussion as this better frames the research. More acknowledgement of the limitations of this study also improves this manuscript.
I have a few comments that I feel need to be addressed before the manuscript can be published.
- It is still not clear to me what is being modified between the PI and LP experiments and what albedo effect you are testing. In L122 it says the albedo values are not modified and in your response you say ‘the model retains the pre-industrial albedo values in those grid cells’, referring to the grid cells that are no longer considered ‘ice sheet’. Does this mean you are not testing the impact of reducing the surface albedo that comes from reducing ice sheet extent (direct albedo) but instead are only testing the indirect albedo changes due to LW energy balance changes? If this is the case, why do you say in the abstract L20 that you isolate the ‘direct albedo effect’.
I think it need to be explained more clearly what the effect is you are investigating, what is changed between the grid cells that were considered ice at the PI but not at the LP, and include justification for only testing the indirect effect when direct ice-albedo feedbacks are shown to be very important in modifying climate.
- L7 and L380 say that LP ‘paleogeography’ is used which is not completely accurate as orography/bathymetry isn’t used only the ice extent.
- L131: why do you run the simulations for 1450 years, is it to equilibrium?
- L164: Figure ?? needs correcting
- L275: Figure ?? needs correcting
- L377-380: I think this discussion on gaps in existing research and how and why the LP is a good analogue for future climate scenarios could also be touched on more in the introduction to provide more context (e.g. what the GHG and temp levels were, evidence for how similar the ice sheet extents might be).
- L384: Give an example of what the impact of including orography changes might be, include reference.
- L428: how do you finding help identify early signals of ice sheet retreat? This isn’t touched on or discussed anywhere else.

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #4 (31 Jul 2025)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (09 Aug 2025) by Roland Séférian

AR by Katherine Power on behalf of the Authors (19 Aug 2025) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (20 Aug 2025) by Roland Séférian

AR by Katherine Power on behalf of the Authors (20 Aug 2025) Manuscript

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

22 Oct 2025

Late Pliocene ice sheets as an analogue for future climate: a sensitivity study of the polar Southern Hemisphere

Katherine Power, Fernanda DI Alzira Oliveira Matos, and Qiong Zhang

Earth Syst. Dynam., 16, 1845–1863, https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1845-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-16-1845-2025, 2025

Short summary

Katherine Power, Fernanda Matos, and Qiong Zhang

Viewed

Total article views: 940 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
776	144	20	940	32	44

HTML: 776
PDF: 144
XML: 20
Total: 940
BibTeX: 32
EndNote: 44

Views and downloads (calculated since 04 Feb 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2025	88	29	2	119
Mar 2025	67	14	4	85
Apr 2025	38	15	4	57
May 2025	32	5	1	38
Jun 2025	63	26	3	92
Jul 2025	31	27	1	59
Aug 2025	74	8	3	85
Sep 2025	353	11	1	365
Oct 2025	30	9	1	40

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 04 Feb 2025)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Feb 2025	88	29	2	119
Mar 2025	67	14	4	85
Apr 2025	38	15	4	57
May 2025	32	5	1	38
Jun 2025	63	26	3	92
Jul 2025	31	27	1	59
Aug 2025	74	8	3	85
Sep 2025	353	11	1	365
Oct 2025	30	9	1	40

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 985 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 985 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 22 Oct 2025

Download

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

Preprint (4644 KB)
Metadata XML

Short summary

This study explores the climate impact of reduced Antarctic and Greenland Ice Sheets using the Late Pliocene as an analogue for future climate. Results reveal a 9.5 °C rise in Antarctic surface temperature, 16 % sea ice loss, and increased precipitation. The simulations highlight weakened Antarctic Bottom Water formation and Southern Annular Mode persistence. By isolating albedo effects, this research provides insights into global climate dynamics and feedbacks.


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