the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Impact of sea ice rheological parameters and grounded iceberg distribution on Antarctic landfast sea ice: a sensitivity study with CICE version 6.4.1
Abstract. Landfast sea ice (fast ice) is a prominent feature of the Antarctic coastal environment. It plays key roles as a climate driver in the hydrological dynamics of the Antarctic continental shelf and serves as a critical habitat. However, despite its importance, Antarctic fast ice remains poorly represented in most global climate models. This study addresses key knowledge gaps in sea-ice modelling for realistically simulating Antarctic fast ice within an elastic-viscous-plastic rheological framework using a stand-alone sea-ice model. We conduct a suite of pan-Antarctic 1/4° stand-alone sea-ice model simulations to quantify the role of grounded icebergs and to systematically test the influence of key rheological parameters (yield-curve ellipse aspect ratio, tensile strength, and ice strength) in sustaining fast ice. To support this, we introduce a new grounded iceberg dataset and a method to prescribe realistic grounded iceberg distributions based on observations. Our results show that the model reproduces the observed spatial distribution, seasonal maximum, and growth and retreat rates of Antarctic fast ice. Simulated fast ice reproduces the observed seasonal climatology but captures only limited inter-annual variability in circum-Antarctic fast-ice area. We demonstrate that simulated fast ice is highly sensitive to the ellipse aspect ratio (controlling the shear strength of the yield curve), tensile strength magnitude, and the presence and distribution of grounded icebergs. Realistic Antarctic fast ice is produced with an ellipse aspect ratio of 1.2, a tensile strength of 0.2, and a prescribed pan-Antarctic grounded iceberg extent of ~580 grid cells distributed consistently with observations. In this configuration, comparison with an otherwise similar simulation without grounded icebergs indicates that approximately 83 % of simulated fast-ice area depends on grounded icebergs as mechanical anchoring points. Importantly, these rheology and grounded iceberg modifications do not degrade the simulation of overall sea-ice area, thickness, or velocity in the Southern Ocean in our stand-alone simulations. These findings provide practical guidance for improving Antarctic fast-ice representation in coupled climate models through realistic grounded iceberg representation and targeted tuning of rheological parameters.
- Preprint
(21107 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 01 Jul 2026)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1541', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Jun 2026 reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-1541', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Jun 2026
reply
Overview:
This study presents new simulation with the CICE sea ice model that use a combination of model parameter tuning and prescribed grounded icebergs to improve the simulation of Antarctic fast ice. Overall I find the study interesting, convincing, and well-written. I believe the study to be suitable for publication after addressing the relatively minor comments below.
Major Comments:
Lines 100-103: It strikes me as a little odd that lateral drag is mentioned here but then ignored for the rest of the paper. Please explain somewhere why you do not address it in this study.
Line 353-355: It seems bit strong to me to claim that the models produce broadly realistic SIT climatology when, as you say, all runs are biased at least 0.5-1m below the satellite estimate for the entire simulation period. Do you have a potential reason for why all the models are so low (or conversely, why the satellite estimate is so high?)
Line 505 and 620-621: Can you elaborate on this in the discussion? What coupled feedbacks would you expect to have an influence on this year-to-year variability and via what physical mechanisms?
Minor Comments:
Line 28-29: “Aptenodytes forsteri” repeated
Line 194-150: Define these parameters, it is not clear what they are here
Line 183-184: this needs to be explained in more detail.
If I understand correctly, U(0, 1) is a uniform distribution on (0, 1) from which you are taking a random draw u. Then, if u is less than p(c) we retain the cell, otherwise we remove it. I would spell this out in more detail for those not so familiar with this mathematical notation.
Line 282: I think this should be “... a two-week rolling mean of sea-ice speed to distinguish ...”
Line 285-301: There’s a lot of repetition in here, and the flow doesn’t quite make sense. For example, I’m not quite sure what you mean by “Rather” on line 289 in this context. Also, you define M_{Fi_bin} only after saying you use it over M_{FI_day}, and several sentences after you talk about the benefits of using it. This took me some time to understand as I thought I had missed the definition on first reading. I would start by defining the two metrics, then saying why you use “bin” over “days”, then talk about the benefits of “bin” over the two-week metric.
Line 303: Needs a comma after “i.e.”
Line 313: needs a comma between “forced with ERA5” and “and ORAS”. Otherwise it reads like you are forcing ACCESS-OM2-025 with both ERA5 and ORAS (which is how I read it initially).
Figure 1: caption for (b) says models span 1994-2017, but overall figure caption says 1994-1999.
Line 425: I think based on your convention elsewhere this should be “LFI” where it says “landfast”. There are a few other instances of this throughout the manuscript. Ensure the text is consistent on this terminology before final publication.
Figure 6: I think this figure looks like it has been horizontally stretched slightly? The text, particularly in the axis labels, looks strange.
Figure 7: Why are the coloured dots at different vertical positions within each row? What does the y-position of a coloured dot represent?
Figure 10: Figure legend should say “F2020” not “AF2020”
Line 521-524: This summary is not necessary here given the more detailed one that follows it. You also summarize it again in the conclusions, so I don’t think this is needed.
Line 537-538: “tensile strength parameter” repeated
Line 585: “increases the mean simulated fast-ice area to 67%...” 67% of what? Be clear with what you’re referring to here. On the same note, later in the sentence you say it “produces a near-equivalent circum-Antarctic fast-ice area” but don’t specify what it is “near-equivalent” to.
Line 796-797: “Consistent with your earlier note, the diagnosed seasonal maximum also tends to shift later as tensile resistance increases.” I’m not sure what “your earlier note” here refers to?
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-1541-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 271 | 84 | 16 | 371 | 21 | 19 |
- HTML: 271
- PDF: 84
- XML: 16
- Total: 371
- BibTeX: 21
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please see the attached PDF for comments.