the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A comparison of the last two glacial inceptions (MIS 7/5) via fully coupled transient ice and climate modeling
Abstract. Little is known about the evolution of continental ice sheets through the last two glacial inceptions (Marine isotope stages, MIS 7d and MIS 5d). Here, we present the results of a perturbed parameter ensemble of transient simulations of the last two glacial inceptions and subsequent interstadials (MIS 7e-7c, 240–215 ka and MIS 5e-5c, 122–98 ka) with the fully coupled ice/climate model LCice. LCice includes all critical direct feedbacks between climate and ice. As shown herein, it can capture the inferred sea level change (of up to 80 m) of the last two glacial inceptions within proxy uncertainty. One key underlying question of paleoclimate dynamics is the non-linear state dependence of the climate system. Concretely, in a model-centric context, to what extent does the capture of one climate interval in an Earth systems model guarantee capture of another interval? For LCice, the capture of present-day climate is insufficient to predict capture of glacial inception climate, as only a small fraction of ensemble members that performed "well" for present-day captured inception. Furthermore, the capture of inferred sea level change in one inception has weak correlation with the same outcome for the other.
After partial history matching against present-day and past sea level constraints, the resultant NROY (not ruled out yet) ensemble of simulations have a number of features of potential interest to various paleo communities, including the following. (i) In correspondence with the inferred last glacial maximum configuration, the simulated North American ice sheets are substantially larger than the Eurasian ice sheet throughout MIS 5d-MIS 5c and MIS 7d-MIS 7c. (ii) Hudson Bay can transition from an ice-free state to full ice cover (grounded ice) within 2000 years. (iii) The North American and Eurasian ice sheets advanced southward with rates well above 100 m/yr during the penultimate glacial inception and over 70 (Eurasia) and 90 (North America) m/kyr during last glacial inception. (iv) the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets merge in their northern sectors in 13 out of 14 NROY simulations for MIS 7d, contrary to what is assumed from limited geological data. (v) larger ice sheets display a larger lag in the timing of stadial maximum ice volume compared to that of the insolation minimum; the North American ice sheet maximum lags 5.3 ± 0.5 kyrs behind the MIS 7d insolation minimum. Supplemental resources include a dynamic display of ice advance and subsequent retreat for a sub-ensemble of 14 NROY simulations from MIS 5d-5c and MIS 7d-7c.
Competing interests: One author (Lev Tarasov) is a member of the editorial board of "Climate of the Past". The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
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 preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.- Preprint
(3495 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-495', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Mar 2025
Geng et al. present numerical experiments of the last two glacial inceptions with a coupled ice sheet – climate model. The experiments are thoroughly performed but I found the manuscript uneasy, long and mostly descriptive, with not-so-pretty figures. I found no clear take-home messages from this impressive amount of simulations.
Major comments
1) My main comment is about the general purpose of the manuscript. At present the manuscript is mostly descriptive with almost inexistent discussions on the physical mechanisms at play. Given the multiple sources of uncertainty, a model is not expected to perfectly reproduce past changes and the authors seem fully aware of this. Instead, a model is based on physical assumptions which can be tested in multiple ways and confronted to palaeo data. Geng et al. manuscript mostly discuss simulated ice sheet changes and how it compares with the palaeo data. What can we learn from this? It is not particularly useful to know that some experiments work better than other, what is useful to know is “why some experiments work better and why others do not”. The main justification for using forward coupled ice sheet – climate model experiments instead of an inverse approach is to be able to discuss mechanisms. For example, from the title, I would expect to see some discussions on the difference in terms of mechanisms for the last two glacial inceptions. Differences in oceanic heat transport for the two inceptions and how they are linked (or not) with the Eurasian ice sheet growth (or else)? How can we link the differences in ice sheet geometry with the orbital forcing? Different patten of precipitations and/or temperature for the two inceptions or simply a shift driven by the insolation anomalies? Why the Antarctic ice sheet is so stable for the two time periods? What makes that one experiment is successful and not the other?...etc. I think there is material for many interesting discussions but the aim of the paper has first to be clarified.
2) A less important comment is that we have very few information of the coupling is done. Earlier work is referenced but the manuscript lacks some important clarifications in the methods. Please explain briefly how the downscaling works and how the surface mass balance is computed. Same for the sub-shelf melt (quadratic dependency? Near neighbour interpolation?…). What kind of ice sheet model is GSM? What is its spatial resolution? How friction and calving are computed? Also, it seems that a relative sea level solver is used but how does it work? Does it assume an eustatic homogeneous value at the start of the transient experiments or a perturbation of the present-day geoid is used? It seems that the bathymetry (ocean grid model) is unchanged, but then what happened for the air-sea fluxes and albedo in the Hudson Bay area when it becomes glaciated? This last point is highly relevant since Hudson Bay area results are highlighted in the manuscript.
3) A time-dependent bias correction is used to correct the climate data used to force the ice sheet model. This correction is maximal when the total ice volume is close to present-day and decrease with increasing ice volume. This is motivated by the fact that we cannot guarantee that the biases remain constant in time. While it sounds appealing I find this approach not really justified. The biases can also, in principle, increase with increasing ice volume. For example, a too wet mountainous area might become even wetter if the surface topography increases (same for temperature). Right now I think the reduction of the bias correction with increasing ice volume is unjustified and seems simply like tuning strategy. It would be nice to show simulations with constant bias correction and to properly discuss what are the implications of the chosen methodology on the results. It strikes as odd to claim to have explored thoroughly the parametric uncertainty with a large ensemble when ad-hoc tuning strategies are used (bias dependent correction and additional warming in certain locations).
4) I feel a bit frustrated to have no information on the spun-up ice sheets and climate at 122 ka and at 240 ka. What the initial ice sheets look like – in terms of ensemble mean and standard deviation? Have you evaluated these initial states against palaeo data? Is part of the transient response can be explained by the state of the ice sheet and the climate at the beginning of the simulation? I expect much larger ice sheet after the 7 ka spin-up at 240 ka compared to the ones at 122 ka since both CO2 and Northern Hemisphere summer insolation are lower.
5) I can find no coupled modern simulations in the manuscript. It seems that the calibration against the present-day climate has been run with LOVECLIM only, not including the interactive ice sheets component. This seems illogical since it is plausible that amongst the 90 NROY members some of them would produce unrealistic present-day ice sheets. Perhaps the members that produce the largest ice mass gain for the inceptions does not reproduce observed present-day ice sheets under modern boundary conditions. It would have been useful to run modern / Holocene ice sheet – climate simulations to rule out the members that do not manage to maintain present-day ice sheets.
6) Is albedo downscaled? If not, the temperature provided by ECBilt to GSM has probably a strong imprint of the original albedo. Also if the albedo is indeed computed on the native T21 grid, it can explains the stepwise ice sheet advances and/or retreat, which is then an artificial feature of the model. Please comment / discuss the albedo in the manuscript.
7) One improvement with respect to Bahadory and Tarasov (2018) is the representation of an interactive Antarctic ice sheet component. However there is virtually no information on Antarctica in the paper. Was it expected to have a stable Antarctic ice sheet for the time periods considered? Don’t we expect a retreated ice sheet at 122 ka? Do the coupling affect the large-scale climate through freshwater and/or salt rejection?
8) The quality of the figures can be largely improved. Most of them are blurry (Fig. 1 or 3 in particular) or contain too much information (Fig. 1 can be probably split into two sub-panels).
Minor comments
- P4L100: “4 x acceleration” what is meant here?
- P4L105: ECBilt contains ageostrophic correction terms.
- P4L108: NA is defined only P7. More generally, do we need these abbreviations?
- P5 Fig.2: It would be useful to have the frequency of exchanges (annual, monthly,...)
- P5L110: I am not sure how robust are the results of Lofverstrom and Liakka (2018). We cannot use a model at different resolutions without retuning some parameters. It is likely that the base model of Lofverstrom and Liakka (2018) – meaning the one that has been calibrated – was the one at high resolution.
- P5L123-124: If the ocean cannot be turned to land, what happens to the Hudson Bay area in terms of albedo, air-sea fluxes,...?
- P6L129-131: The daily variability is not taken into account if monthly means are used – or do you use some kind of a paremetrisation for daily variability?
- P6L134: Salinity is not used in the melt equation? For ice sheet points with no corresponding ocean points, do you use some kind of spatial interpolation?
- P6L136-137: If this is a novelty from earlier work it has to be a bit more described… How the ice shelves are handled? Does it make a difference to have the interactive Antarctic ice sheet? Does it impact the Northern Hemisphere simulated climate?
- P6L139: It is not enough to cite a paper in preparation. We need to know how the surface mass balance is computed since it is a critical point for glacial inception.
- P6L141-148: What formula is used to correct the climatic variables? A simple delta method? Also for evaporation and winds? Please provide the equations used (in supplement) to correct the different variables.
- P6L152: What can we learn from this? Event though a bias correction method is used, we still need to impose an ad-hoc correction. This additional correction is here to make the results “pretty” or does it really change climate and ice sheet dynamics? This point deserves further discussion.
- P6L155: The value 1 is not included in this range while it is what has been used as standard in earlier LOVECLIM works. How compatible are these values with previous model evaluations? Also, the climate sensitivity is low with standard LOVECLIM parameters but the ensemble used here is very large and it is possible that it does not need this artificial climate sensitivity increase.
- P7L172: Refer to appendix A2.
- Figure A1: Precipitation units?
- P7L186: How these dates have been selected?
- P7L187-189: With this methodology, the climate and ice sheets are supposed to be in equilibrium while the sea level record shows large changes, especially for MIS7. Assuming equilibrium is a practical choice but it would be useful to have a discussion on how alternative climate and ice sheet at the start of the transient experiments can impact the results.
- P7L190-191: 7 kyr is not enough to spin up ice sheet internal variables (temperature / viscosity).
- P7L191-192: What freshwater flux is given to the ocean in accelerated experiments? Conserving mass would lead to overestimated fluxes (x4 too high).
- P9 Fig. 3: The ensemble members seem to start with very similar ice volumes at 240 and 120 ka. This is very surprising given the fact that the climate is necessary very different (lower Northern Hemisphere insolation and GHG at 240 ka).
- P11 L253-257: This is the only section mentioning the Antarctic ice sheet. What is the geometry of the spun-up ice sheet? The largest shelves are simulated? I find it not convincing to invoke a direct correlation between Southern Hemisphere maximum in insolation and minimum ice volume. Surface melt is low in Antarctica and most of SMB changes are linked to precipitation and oceanic sub-shelf melt. Do you imply that the sub-surface oceanic temperatures are correlated with the local insolation? There is probably a better (positive) correlation between global mean temperature and Antarctic volume (wetter climate). In its current form the Antarctic results are not informative.
- P12 Fig. 4: After an initial ice growth the model melts the Eurasian and North American ice sheets, which is not supported by proxy data. Does it mean that the albedo – melt feedback is too strong?
- P12L266: Specify in the figure that this is the summer isotherm.
- P13 Fig. 6: why not adding the Antarctic ice sheet in this plot – a correlation with Northern Hemisphere insolation is not excluded.
- P13L270: How do you evaluate the sea-level temperature? Which lapse rate is used?
- P16L312-316: Do we have a control of sub-shelf melt? Please discuss.
- P18 End of section 3.3.2: The model simulates the “right” volume but underestimates the extent. Is it because the model is too wet despite the precipitation correction? Or sliding/deformation is underestimated?
- P19 Fig. 10: Dates for ice geometry?
- P20 Sec. 4.1: But then, what is the purpose of Sec. 3.3 where model results are confronted to uncertain geological data? Again for me the strength of a model is to understand mechanisms and processes. Uncertain models are not meant to reproduce uncertain data…
- P21L417 vs. P21L424: Full ice cover in 2 kyr or 1 kyr?
- P21L426: It is really possible to discuss results in this area given the fact that a fixed bathymetry is used and as such the surface mass balance model is evaluated using atmospheric fields above an ocean when it is land.
- P21L436: This is probably due to an artefact of the model since the ice mask is evaluated at the atmospheric model resolution. A whole grid cell can artificially switch from unglaciated to glaciated causing discontinuity in the albedo (hence near-surface air temperature). This result should not be discussed as if it is a real thing.
- P22L456-464: I am not sure that it is related to atmospheric circulation. Albedo is not downscaled which can cause an artificially homogeneous albedo over the whole ice sheet. A sub-grid parametrisation of albedo could also help to reproduce this feature.
- P22L466-472: It looks like a simple repetition of a previous section.
- P23L496: “model’s capability to simulate present-day climate” – it seems to me that this is not completely justified. The coupled ice sheet – climate model has not been used for present-day.
- P23L505-506: It is not really a new results. If some modellers have used deglacial ice sheets for pre-LGM it was for simplicity, but the effect of glacial isostasy is well known and accepted for a while now.
- P24L520: The code is not publicly available, meaning that it is not possible for other scientists to have a look of the coupling strategy in LCice.
Technical comments
- Abstract: problem with the units - 90 m/kyr
- Abstract: remove last sentence
- P2L45: “between the two” → 4 sea level reconstructions are discussed.
- Fig. 1: show x- and y-axis units. Figure is poor quality and really hard to read. To improve the readibility you could to separate CO2 and insolation from the sea level reconstructions. It is very blurry right now.
- Fig. 4 & 5: Capital “m”
- P15L308: Typo – inception
- P25 Fig. A1: Units of precip? Change the color palette so that it appears while when there is no change.
- P27 Tab. B1: Add a short description of these parameters and their units.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-495-RC1 -
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-495', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Mar 2025
Review of "A comparison of the last two glacial inceptions (MIS 7/5) via fully
coupled transient ice and climate modeling" by Geng et al.The manuscript presents the result of two glacial inception periods using climate and ice sheet coupled model LCice version 2.0, composed of climate module LOVECLIM and ice sheet module GSM. The model simulations were focused on uncertain parameters, primarily in a climate model, and evaluated the results based on simulated sea level changes during two glacial inceptions. The authors analyzed the extent of ice sheets, primarily in the Northern Hemisphere, changes during two glacial inceptions and retreats in the following insolation changes, and they analyzed the speed of ice sheet migration and retreats.
While I think the topic of the study and the methodology are well-suited for Climate of the Past, I could not recommend accepting the manuscript in the current form because of concerns in the model settings:Concerns about Bias corrections
A significant point in the experimental design is that the climate model's bias correction term depends on the climate state, as in L144-145. While it is not trivial that the biases in climate models are the same during glacial periods, the assumption of zero bias in the LGM state is somewhat subjective. More importantly, the bias correction, depending on climate, can act as feedback that does not exist in the real world. Let us assume there is a warm bias of 6 K in the NA ice sheet margin (Figure A1 top). If the ice sheet were to grow from this state to MIS7d, where ice sheet volumes are about half of the LGM (the paper does not state how many meters this is), the weakening of the bias correction would cause the temperature at that point to rise by 3°C. Given that the global mean temperature at the LGM differs by about 4.5±0.9°C (e.g. Annan et al., 2022), wouldn't this feedback from the bias correction significantly affect comparable radiative forcing of insolation and Greenhouse gases? Another issue related to this bias correction is ad-hoc temperature increases in these two regions (L152) It is unclear from the text whether this can be achieved simultaneously with the above bias correction.
This climate-dependent bias correction makes it challenging to make comparisons with other studies, such as the MIS7 (Choudhury et al. 2020), glacial inception experiments without bias correction (we recommend citing Kageyama et al. 2004, Gregory et al. 2012), and glacial cycle experiments performed with bias correction throughout simulations (Ganopolski et al. 2010, Abe-Ouchi et al. 2013). One common explanation for using identical bias correction independent from climate state is that the model bias comes from limited horizontal resolution or the limited climate processes unique to the climate model.
I recommend the authors to have a set of simulations with identical bias correction throughout the simulations as a reference simulation.Specific comments
L2-3: The sentence might be accurate, but as this study uses sea level changes during MIS7 and MIS5 as constraints of the NROY simulations, this statement can be more specific based on the method of the simulations.L4: It can be clarified that insolation and GHG changes are used as transient forcing in the experiments.
L6-10: What does "model-centric context" mean in this sentence? According to Table B1, most of the parameters after MIS7 and MIS5 constraints are within range of the original parameters adapted in the original LOVECLIM.
L16: please indicate the uncertainty range as in Table 2.
L66: Studies on glacial inception using coupled ice sheet-climate models (Kageyama et al., 2004; Gregory et al., 2012) should be referred to.
L 96: As the model name is "LCice2.0," please clarify the major differences from LCice version 1.0 (Bahadory Tarasov 2018; 2021).
L98: which insolation data is used?
L99: Bereiter et al. (2015) include only CO2 time-series. What about other greenhouse gas components? For example, Choudhury et al., (2020) used three GHG components (CO2, CH4, N2O) from Dome C ice core (Loulergue et al., 2008; Lüthi et al., 2008; Schilt et al., 2010)
L126-133: How are bedrock changes due to ice sheet loading? For example, does GSM include Glacial Isostatic Adjustment component?
L136-140: The equations and parameters of the Surface mass balance scheme should be clarified because they are essential for replicating the results. I understand the model is still in development, but the equations and parameters used in this study should be clarified (e.g. section 2.2 of Choudhury et al., 2020).
L145: Please clarify the value of the LGM sea level used in this study.
L150: Please clarify the areas of "continental scale" when defining spatial mean anomaly of precipitation bias correction.
L152: "we impose further ad-hoc temperature increases in these two regions (ranging from +1K to +9K)" What does this mean? Firstly, please clarify the area of temperature anomaly by using a figure. Secondly, does it mean that the present-day temperature over Alaska and Siberia in the experiments is much warmer than the ERA climatology? The discussion section should discuss how this ad-hoc temperature anomaly affects the results. In addition, it is unclear from the text why it has to be 1 to 9°C range.
Method: What about the equations or parameters for Antarctic ice sheets? For example, the equation for Surface mass balance is the same between the Northern Hemisphere ice sheets and the Antarctic ice sheets. There are some sub-shelf melts in Bahadory and Tarasov (2018), but I could not find a reference article on the evaluation of Antarctic ice sheets in the LCice model. While this article focused on NH, the minimum assessment of Antarctic ice sheet changes is necessary when discussing Antarctic ice sheet changes as in Figures 4 and 5.
L190-192: What does acceleration mean? The transient insolation and GHG changes accelerated by four times? As discussed by Choudhury et al. (2020), depending on the setup of the experiments, the acceleration can break the conservation of freshwater volume.
L202-204: Please clarify the definition of the period of MIS7d, 7c, 5d, 5c, respectively. The same applies to Table 2.
L224-225: According to Table B1, almost all parameters in the "all members" column and "pass all filters" columns are within the uncertainty range. Is it true? I assume "all members" corresponds to 2000 simulations and "pass all filters" corresponds to 14 NROY simulations, but it seems strange that almost all parameters are the same within uncertainty.
L254: What is the method of tuning of sub-shelf ocean temperature bias corrections for Antarctica?
L282, L317, and L323 : missing uncertainty range information; please make it consistent with the Tables.
L445-455: According to Figure A1 (left bottom), LOVECLIM has an excessive precipitation bias over Western Canada. As the precipitation bias correction is defined as the continental-scale spatial mean anomaly (L149-150), this precipitation bias might have contributed to the pre-LGM merging of the northern Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets in the simulations, which can be discussed.
L466-472: This section discusses -2, 0, 4℃ isotherm as indicators of ice sheet margin. Is there any objective way to extract these numbers as a representative? In addition, do these numbers correspond to the ablation scheme of the LCice model?
Table 1:
Firstly, please clarify that the areal-mean value is used for seven regions for 2-m temperature, precipitation and ocean temperature.
Secondly, the sign of the change for the filter criteria MIS7c/5c would be the opposite: "decreased ice sheet volume compared to MIS7d" or "increased sea level compared to MIS7d"Figure 4: insolation axis missing
Figure 7: this figure can be moved to SI because it is unrelated to method or result.
Figures 10 and 11: Are the selected NROY ensemble members common between the two figures?
Figure 11: please clarify "selected three NROY ensemble members"
References:
Kageyama, M., Charbit, S., Ritz, C., Khodri, M., and Ramstein, G.: Quantifying ice-sheet feedbacks during the last glacial inception, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L24203, doi:10.1029/2004GL021339, 2004.
Gregory, J. M., Browne, O. J. H., Payne, A. J., Ridley, J. K., and Rutt, I. C.: Modelling large-scale ice-sheet–climate interactions following glacial inception, Clim. Past, 8, 1565–1580, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-8-1565-2012, 2012.
Annan, J. D., Hargreaves, J. C., and Mauritsen, T.: A new global surface temperature reconstruction for the Last Glacial Maximum, Clim. Past, 18, 1883–1896, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-18-1883-2022, 2022.
Abe-Ouchi, A., Saito, F., Kawamura, K., Raymo, M. E., Okuno, J., Takahashi, K., and Blatter, H.: Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume, Nature, 500, 190–194, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12374, 2013.
Ganopolski, A., Calov, R., and Claussen, M.: Simulation of the last glacial cycle with a coupled climate ice-sheet model of intermediate complexity, Clim. Past, 6, 229–244, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-6-229-2010, 2010.
Choudhury, D., Timmermann, A., Schloesser, F., Heinemann, M., and Pollard, D.: Simulating Marine Isotope Stage 7 with a coupled climate-ice sheet model, Climate of the Past, 16, 2183–2201, https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-16-2183-2020, 2020Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-495-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-495', Anonymous Referee #3, 03 Apr 2025
Summary
Geng and colleagues have conducted PPE simulations using a coupled ice sheet–climate model to study glaciation and subsequent ice-sheet variations during MIS 7 and MIS 5. In these simulations, 18 uncertain climate model parameters were varied and constrained based on their ability to reproduce the seasonality of the modern climate. Using the constrained members, the authors simulated two glaciation events and found that 14 of them satisfied sea-level constraints. These 14 members did not exhibit a strong preference for specific parameter spaces. The simulated ice-sheet configurations in Eurasia (EA) and North America (NA) from the best-performing members were then compared against existing paleoenvironmental records. Lastly, the authors showed that the relative sizes of individual ice sheets can vary among members, even when the total ice volume is similar.
General comments
I find the simulation results presented here interesting and relevant to the readers of Climate of the Past. However, I believe there is room for improvement in the analysis of the modeling results, as outlined below. Therefore, I recommend major revisions before the manuscript can be accepted for publication.
My main comment focuses on analyzing the causes of the spread in the ensemble simulations. While this study emphasizes paleo data–model comparisons, the authors acknowledge that proxy data are sparse. Given this limitation, I believe it would be more valuable to investigate the reasons behind the model spread in the ensemble simulations, providing readers with a clearer physical understanding of the coupled ice sheet–climate system's dynamics.
For instance, it would be particularly interesting to explore why some ensemble members successfully simulate glacial inception while others do not, despite similarly representing the modern climate. In Section 3.1, the authors note the importance of nonlinear interactions among parameters, but I would appreciate further elaboration. Previous studies (e.g., Gregory et al. 2012; Sagoo et al. 2021) have highlighted the critical roles of ice albedo and clouds in glacial inception and others (e.g., Gandy et al. 2023; Sherriff-Tadano et al. 2024) have emphasized their influence on ice sheet maintenance. In the context of these PPE simulations, could these effects be canceling each other out? Or are other nonlinear compensatory processes at play? A pair plot, similar to those presented in Gandy et al. (2023, Fig. 4) and Quiquet et al. (2018, Fig. 9), might help clarify these relationships. Additionally, is there a link between the magnitude of ice sheet inception and global cooling in the model? This aspect is often difficult to investigate using more complex Earth system models, making it a potential advantage of the modeling approach used here.
Secondly, this is a minor comment, but I would appreciate more explanation regarding the motivation for comparing the two glacial inceptions. As far as I understand, the timing of changes in obliquity and precession differs between them, which could lead to different sensitivities of inception to uncertain parameters. Adding an explanation in the paragraph around L74–79 might help clarify this point, though I leave it to the authors to decide where best to include it.
Specific comments
L20-22: I suggest revising the concluding sentence to better highlight the key findings of this study or suggest potential directions for future research.
L59: The issue of not including Antarctica was unclear at first. While this is discussed later in Section 3.4, a brief explanation here would help clarify it.
L79-80: Agreed!
L116-117: Please provide the exact value here for clarity.
L134: Could you specify the depth? Does it vary by location?
L144: What is the rationale for this choice? Please add a brief explanation.
L159 &L225-226: It would be helpful to reference Appendix B1 here. Additionally, how did the authors determine the initial range of parameters in the ensemble simulations? If there is a relevant reference, please cite it; otherwise, consider adding an explanation in Appendix B1.
L165: What about the actual summer temperature, which is crucial for ice sheet development?
L212: Is this due to the weaker increase in summer insolation (Figs. 4 and 5)?
L215-217: To avoid confusion, it would be better to ensure consistency with the values shown in Table 2.
L224-225: Why is the greenhouse gas radiative factor slightly constrained? Could this be related to the magnitude of global cooling during the inception?
L232-234: This finding is consistent with Abe-Ouchi et al. (2013, Fig. 2) and may be linked to warmer conditions over Eurasia compared to North America. Please consider adding a sentence or discussion on this point where appropriate.
L302-308: Repetition?
L308: “MIS7d inception”?
L318-319: Is there any relation between the speed of ice sheet advance and the model parameters used for the ice sheet?
L337-338 & L456-464: Given the large uncertainties on both the proxy and modeling sides, I would prefer to see a more detailed analysis of the causes of the model spread, especially since this is a modeling study. For instance, Fig. 9 shows one member without the merger of the two ice sheets. What explains this? Is it related to low albedo parameters, weak global cooling, or another factor?
L496-498: What is the underlying reason for this result?
Figs. 4 & 5: Please add a label for the insolation.
References
Abe-Ouchi, A., Saito, F., Kawamura, K., Raymo, M. E., Okuno, J., Takahashi, K., & Blatter, H. (2013). Insolation-driven 100,000-year glacial cycles and hysteresis of ice-sheet volume. Nature, 500(7461), 190–193. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12374
Gandy, N., Astfalck, L. C., Gregoire, L. J., Ivanovic, R. F., Patterson, V. L., Sherriff-Tadano, S., Smith, R. S., Williamson, D., & Rigby, R. (2023). De-Tuning Albedo Parameters in a Coupled Climate–Ice Sheet Model to Simulate the North American Ice Sheet at the Last Glacial Maximum. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 128(8), e2023JF007250. https://doi.org/10.1029/2023JF007250
Gregory, J. M., Browne, O. J. H., Payne, A. J., Ridley, J. K., & Rutt, I. C. (2012). Modelling large-scale ice-sheet–climate interactions following glacial inception. Climate of the Past, 8(5), 1565–1580. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-8-1565-2012
Quiquet, A., Dumas, C., Ritz, C., Peyaud, V., & Roche, D. M. (2018). The GRISLI ice sheet model (version 2.0): calibration and validation for multi-millennial changes of the Antarctic ice sheet. Geoscientific Model Development, 11(12), 5003–5025. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-5003-2018
Sagoo, N., Storelvmo, T., Hahn, L., Tan, I., Danco, J., Raney, B., & Broccoli, A. J. (2021). Observationally Constrained Cloud Phase Unmasks Orbitally Driven Climate Feedbacks. Geophysical Research Letters, 48(6), e2020GL091873. https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091873
Sherriff-Tadano, S., Ivanovic, R., Gregoire, L., Lang, C., Gandy, N., Gregory, J., Edwards, T. L., Pollard, O., & Smith, R. S. (2024). Large-ensemble simulations of the North American and Greenland ice sheets at the Last Glacial Maximum with a coupled atmospheric general circulation–ice sheet model. Climate of the Past, 20(7), 1489–1509. https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-1489-2024
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-495-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
153 | 30 | 8 | 191 | 8 | 8 |
- HTML: 153
- PDF: 30
- XML: 8
- Total: 191
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 53 | 28 |
Canada | 2 | 21 | 11 |
China | 3 | 18 | 9 |
France | 4 | 15 | 8 |
Japan | 5 | 15 | 8 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 53