Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-777
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-777
14 Apr 2025
 | 14 Apr 2025

Comparison of calibration methods of a PICO basal ice shelf melt module implemented in the GRISLI v2.0 ice sheet model

Maxence Menthon, Pepijn Bakker, Aurélien Quiquet, Didier M. Roche, and Ronja Reese

Abstract. Future sea level rise uncertainties are mainly due to uncertainties in Antarctic ice sheet projections. Indeed, modelling the future of the Antarctic ice sheet presents many challenges. One of them is being able to model the physical interactions between the ocean and the ice shelves. As a result of limited understanding of these ice-ocean interactions and limited computational resources, these interactions are parametrized rather than explicitly resolved in most ice sheet models. These parameterisations vary in complexity and calibration method, eventually leading to differences in resulting sea level rise contribution of several meters. Here we present the implementation of the PICO basal ice shelf melt module in the GRISLI v2.0 ice sheet model. We compare six different statistical methods to calibrate PICO and assess how robust these methods are if applied at different resolutions and areas of the Antarctic ice sheet. We show that computing the Mean Absolute Error of the bins is the best method as it allows us to match the entire distribution of melt rates retrieved from satellite data at different resolutions as well as for different Antarctic ice shelves. It also results to a smaller parameter space than the other tested methods. This method makes use of melt rate bins and minimizes the differences between the values of the bins of the model and the ones of the observational target. We find that, using this method, region-specific calibration of ice-ocean interactions is not needed and we can avoid using ocean temperature bias corrections. Finally, we assess the impact of the implementation of PICO in GRISLI and of the calibration choice on future projections of the Antarctic ice sheet up to the year 2300.

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.
Share

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

15 Oct 2025
Comparison of calibration methods of a PICO basal ice shelf melt module implemented in the GRISLI v2.0 ice sheet model
Maxence Menthon, Pepijn Bakker, Aurélien Quiquet, Didier M. Roche, and Ronja Reese
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 7297–7320, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-7297-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-7297-2025, 2025
Short summary
Maxence Menthon, Pepijn Bakker, Aurélien Quiquet, Didier M. Roche, and Ronja Reese

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Review of egusphere-2025-777', Xylar Asay-Davis, 12 May 2025
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maxence Menthon, 20 Jun 2025
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-777', Clara Burgard, 25 May 2025
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maxence Menthon, 20 Jun 2025

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
  • RC1: 'Review of egusphere-2025-777', Xylar Asay-Davis, 12 May 2025
    • AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Maxence Menthon, 20 Jun 2025
  • RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-777', Clara Burgard, 25 May 2025
    • AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Maxence Menthon, 20 Jun 2025

Peer review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision | EF: Editorial file upload
AR by Maxence Menthon on behalf of the Authors (22 Jun 2025)  Author's response   Author's tracked changes   Manuscript 
ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (25 Jun 2025) by Qiang Wang
RR by Xylar Asay-Davis (26 Jun 2025)
RR by Clara Burgard (09 Jul 2025)
ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (13 Jul 2025) by Qiang Wang
AR by Maxence Menthon on behalf of the Authors (25 Jul 2025)  Author's response   Manuscript 

Journal article(s) based on this preprint

15 Oct 2025
Comparison of calibration methods of a PICO basal ice shelf melt module implemented in the GRISLI v2.0 ice sheet model
Maxence Menthon, Pepijn Bakker, Aurélien Quiquet, Didier M. Roche, and Ronja Reese
Geosci. Model Dev., 18, 7297–7320, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-7297-2025,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-18-7297-2025, 2025
Short summary
Maxence Menthon, Pepijn Bakker, Aurélien Quiquet, Didier M. Roche, and Ronja Reese

Data sets

Calibration of PICO implemented in GRISLI: model code, scripts for calibration and dataset of simulations Maxence Menthon, Pepijn Bakker, Aurélien Quiquet, Didider M. Roche, and Ronja Reese https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14891971

Maxence Menthon, Pepijn Bakker, Aurélien Quiquet, Didier M. Roche, and Ronja Reese

Viewed

Total article views: 2,132 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
HTML PDF XML Total Supplement BibTeX EndNote
2,039 69 24 2,132 43 36 45
  • HTML: 2,039
  • PDF: 69
  • XML: 24
  • Total: 2,132
  • Supplement: 43
  • BibTeX: 36
  • EndNote: 45
Views and downloads (calculated since 14 Apr 2025)
Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 14 Apr 2025)

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 2,106 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 2,106 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.
Country # Views %
  • 1
1
 
 
 
 
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.

Short summary
The ice-ocean interaction is a large source of uncertainty in future projections of the Antarctic ice sheet. Here we implement a basal ice shelf melt module (PICO) in a ice sheet model (GRISLI) and test six simple statistical methods to calibrate this module. We show that calculating the mean absolute error of bins best fits the observational datasets under multiple conditions. We also assess the impact of the module implementation and calibration choice on future projections until 2300.
Share