the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Large Regional Differences in Antarctic Ice Shelf Mass Loss from Southern Ocean Warming and Meltwater Feedbacks
Abstract. The increasing release of Antarctic meltwater represents one of the most profound, yet uncertain, consequences of global climate change. The absence of interactive ice sheets in state-of-the-art climate models prevents the direct calculation of ice-ocean feedbacks, leaving significant uncertainty in the global and regional consequences of meltwater discharge. This study leverages results from the Southern Ocean Freshwater Input from Antarctica (SOFIA) initiative to assess the ocean response to a 0.1 Sv meltwater perturbation and to infer the resulting feedback on ice shelf basal melting across 10 CMIP6 models. We analyze meltwater-induced temperature anomalies across distinct continental shelf regimes, compare them with SSP5-8.5 global warming-induced anomalies, and translate these into basal melt rates using a parameterization calibrated with a new observational climatology. Although the meltwater feedback is generally thought to amplify basal melting, our results demonstrate large regional differences, with implied enhanced ice shelf mass loss in some sectors but suppressed basal melting in others. The model ensemble indicates a warming feedback on the continental shelf in most East Antarctic regions, whereas in West Antarctica, the region with the greatest observed ice shelf mass loss in recent decades, most models simulate cooling or reduced warming, suggesting a negative feedback. This regional contrast implies that East Antarctica may play an increasingly dominant role in future ice shelf mass loss. Simulations support existing hypotheses linking these asymmetric temperature responses to strong regional connectivity and shelf break dynamics, including a strengthened Antarctic Slope Front, an accelerated Antarctic Slope Current, and reduced dense shelf water formation.
- Preprint
(42289 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 16 Nov 2025)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-3747', Anonymous Referee #1, 20 Oct 2025 reply
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,143 | 53 | 10 | 1,206 | 21 | 25 |
- HTML: 1,143
- PDF: 53
- XML: 10
- Total: 1,206
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 25
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Review of "Large Regional Differences in Antarctic Ice Shelf Mass Loss from Southern Ocean Warming and Meltwater Feedbacks" by Muilwijk et al.
General comment
In this study, the response of the continental shelf properties to Antarctic freshwater and global warming in a multimodel ensemble is investigated. The response shows a large regionality and this is further used to highlight that for ice loss estimates a regional melting rate should be applied rather than a uniform value.
The conducted analysis in the manuscript is sound with the shown results, yet the manuscript is very long and contains a lot of details, which leads to the fact that some sections are difficult to follow. Further, some sections would need some more information for clarification.
Overall, I am convinced that this manuscript will be suitable for publication after some revision. I recommend some careful text revision and some improvements on figures below.
Major Comments:
Specific Comment:
Line 78-92: I really like these sentences and they are very clear. Maybe it is worth having them as a stand alone paragraph.
Line 86: It would be helpful if the resolution of the 2 models are mentioned.
Line 138 - 163: I would recommend restructuring these paragraphs to be more reader friendly, the current structure requests the reader to go back and forth between the different paragraphs to understand how the goals, defined in lines 138-143, are tackled.
Line 180: It would be worth stating that these are the same models as in the antwater analysis.
Figure 2: This figure could describe the methodology better, e.g. annotate the arrows by saying which data is feeding into the regional meltwater rate.
Line 195: “Precipitation - evaporation patterns …” - is this based on observations or models?
Line 197: “and some models reroute precipitation over the Antarctic continent directly into the ocean as runoff and/or calving” - this phrasing sparks the question what other models are doing.
Figure 3a and respective lines: The decomposition of the total freshwater fluxes in the SSP5-8.5 scenario in P-E and runoff, shows that there must be a residual term. Which fluxes are represented by the residual? Are those calving and sea ice growth as mentioned in line 204? Please clarify.
line 231: Please describe the definitions from Barthel et al (2020) not everyone is familiar with them
line 311: What resolution is referred to as “coarse” here, as coarse is a subjective word, it is worth mentioning an order of magnitude.
Line 324-326: Is this general information or pointing to a particular figure? If this is general information, is it needed here as a separate paragraph, otherwise please reference the according figure.
Lines 351- 356: The discussion of the limitations of the climatology without showing the climatology is quite difficult. Please add the climatology, see comment on Section 2.3 above.
Line 363-365: “However, regional…” - the mentioned pattern is not easy to spot in the figures 5 and 6. For me it is only visible in 2 models, the GFDL models, and no common cooling signal in the SSP5-8. 5 simulations. Please provide more guidance where to see this information.
Line 375: “this regime”- it is not clear which regime is referred to.
Line 405: “AWI-ESM…” - there are several models in the right column of Figure 7, which do not show a cooling signal, e.g.: ACCESS-ESM1, CESM2, EC-Earth3. Please revise this statement.
Line 432-435: Based on Figure 8, the intermodel spread is even larger in Amery. Please rephrase.
Line 442: “Some models…”- I would suggest mentioning these models in brackets in the text.
Lines 445 - 455: It is not obvious why some models are described here in detail why others are not. Further there are so many details in this paragraph, which makes it hard to follow. I would recommend revising this paragraph.
Lines 456 - 458: The purpose of this paragraph is not obvious and needs to be better included with the remaining text.
Line 540-545: Here it is worth reminding the reader that the sectors are shown in Figure 1b
Line 565: Which feedback mechanism?
Line 616-621: Why is the along slope velocity computed for the upper 500m and the temperature and salinity fields in Figures 5 and 6 in the upper 1000m? “trapped in the boundary” - what exactly is meant? on the shelf or in the ASC? “most pronounced cold anomalies” - AWI-ESM does not show pronounced cold anomalies in Figure 5 second column. Please revise this paragraph.
Figure 5, 6, 9, 13: The use of discrete color levels would improve readability of the values.
Figure 7: Maybe a weak horizontal grey line indicating the +-0.5°C would help to interpret the figure.
Figure 12: What is the reference for the multimodel anomalies? Further, there are 2 annotations marked with * and **, I assume that * refers to the numbers in the different basins, yet what does ** refer to?
Figure 13: Currently, it is quite hard to read the values and compare the circle size changing in between the subplots.
Technical corrections:
Line 172: Reference not included
Line 185: “an observational climatology“ instead of “the observational climatology”
Line 225: Reference not included
Line 277: m is missing the dot above
Line 360: Is Figure 4 here referenced or Figures 5 and 6 ? Please correct either the “s” or the number.
Line 363: “fourth column” —> third column
Figure 8: Add labels a, b, c as the text refers to them.
Line 440: “second column” —> third column
Line 446: NorESM2-MM —> NorESM2
Caption Figure 10: Formatting of Tf
Line 466: Methods —> which section exactly?
Line 616: Only ASC, it is already introduced