the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Iceberg B09B grounding: a plausible trigger for more persistent marine cold-spells off Commonwealth Bay, East Antarctica
Abstract. Marine cold-spells (MCSs) remain much less studied than marine heatwaves, especially in Antarctic coastal seas where sea ice complicates sea-surface temperatures. Here we quantify MCSs in the Adélie Sill-Commonwealth Bay region of East Antarctica from 1982 to 2024 using daily OSTIA sea-surface temperature and an event-based detection framework. We then compare cold-spell variability with independent indicators of winter sea-ice state, freshwater forcing, and modified Circumpolar Deep Water (mCDW) diagnostics. The strongest long-term increase in MCS exposure is concentrated along a sill-centered corridor linking the Adélie Sill, Adélie Depression, and northern Commonwealth Bay. Before 2010, cold-spell activity was generally weak and spatially patchy. After the 2010 calving of the Mertz Glacier Tongue and the subsequent grounding of iceberg B09B, cold-spells became stronger, more spatially coherent, and more persistent, with domain-wide annual cumulative intensity shifting to substantially more negative values. Seasonal diagnostics show that this post-2011 strengthening is expressed most clearly in summer, while winter remains consistently cold and strongly ice-influenced throughout the record. Winter sea-ice diagnostics indicate a more open but less ice-retentive post-2011 surface state, with increased lead activity, higher open-water fraction, and reduced sea-ice volume proxy. At the same time, mCDW remains present beneath the shelf, but under a thicker cool upper layer. Together, these results identify an iceberg-driven reorganization of the local ice-ocean system in which subsurface heat persists but is less effectively connected to the surface. This framework provides a basis for testing whether similar step-like changes in cold extremes occur on other iceberg-affected Antarctic shelves.
- Preprint
(33229 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 15 Jul 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2171', Zuzanna Wiśniewska, 12 May 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Raven Quilestino-Olario, 13 May 2026
reply
Dear Zuzanna,
Thank you very much for taking the time to read our preprint and for your kind words. We also appreciate your thoughtful questions and helpful suggestions. Please find attached our point-by-point response.
Best regards,
Raven, on behalf of all authors
-
AC1: 'Reply on CC1', Raven Quilestino-Olario, 13 May 2026
reply
-
CC2: 'EGUSPHERE-2026-2171 comment', Anya Chernoff, 22 May 2026
reply
This is a unique take on extreme events, usually from recent studies it is the extreme events that is linked to another environmental event (weakened cyclones, mortality events, etc) but in your paper it is one significant incident with an iceberg that coincided to cold extremes. The 2nd figure tells the story best.
Small comment: on paragraph in line 60, I think you meant Yang et al. 2021 instead of Wang et al. 2022 as the one paired with Peal et al. 2023. I looked over at references and at the papers out of curiousty and yes it should have been Yang et al. 2021 🙂
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2171-CC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Raven Quilestino-Olario, 22 May 2026
reply
Dear Anya,
Thanks for reading our preprint and for your kind words. We are glad that Fig. 2 helped communicate the main story clearly.
You are also correct about the citation in line 60. In that sentence, the companion with Peal et al. (2023) should refer to Yang et al. (2021), not Wang et al. (2022). Thank you for catching this. We will correct the citation in the revised manuscript.
Best regards,
Raven, on behalf of all authorsCitation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2171-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC2', Raven Quilestino-Olario, 22 May 2026
reply
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2171', Anonymous Referee #1, 08 Jun 2026
reply
The grounding of icebergs in near-shore Antarctic waters possesses a certain degree of randomness, whereas marine cold-spells (MCSs) are extreme oceanic events. This manuscript attempts to explore the link between these two phenomena by focusing on Iceberg B09B, which represents a worthwhile line of scientific inquiry. However, the current version of the paper has significant issues regarding the data, methodology, and writing, and requires substantial revision before it can be considered for publication.
Major Comments
1. In Section 2.2.3, the authors apply an additional ice flag to identify cold-spell days occurring under near-ice conditions (MCSice), and summarize both the total number of cold-spell days and the number of MCSice days. However, the subsequent results and analysis only focus on MCSice. The results section only presents the MCSice cumulative intensity, without showing the standalone temperature anomalies (i.e., the intensity not multiplied by the number of days). Based on the definition of MCSice, the temperature should not be much higher than the freezing point, as it is calculated under sea-ice presence. The SST data used in this study are derived from OSTIA. Under sea-ice cover, SST is not directly retrieved via remote sensing but is instead estimated based on sea-ice concentration. Therefore, the identified MCSice events are not based on in situ or directly observed SST, which raises concerns about the reliability of the data.
2. In Section 3.3, the authors divide the year into only two periods: "summer" and "winter" (Fig. 3a), rather than the conventional four seasons. This overly simplistic classification may lead to misinterpretation. For example, adjacent months such as March and April, or September and October, would be assigned to different categories. I recommend presenting the conventional month-by-month variations, or at least providing monthly statistics based on the full dataset to capture the true seasonal characteristics. Lines 335–336 state that "very large MCSice anomalies appear repeatedly and are almost entirely concentrated in the later period," indicating that temporal variations exist even within the defined "summer." Therefore, this issue warrants further investigation.
3. The authors note in Section 3.3 that the variations in MCSice are more pronounced and prominent during summer (Fig. 3a). However, in Section 3.4, they only discuss the relationship between MCSice and winter sea-ice and freshwater flux variations, without discussing the summer conditions or the sea-ice state concurrent with the MCSice events. This represents a biased and preconceived analytical approach, which hinders a comprehensive understanding of the underlying mechanisms.
4. The analysis in Section 3.5 is based on the B-SOSE model. However, since icebergs are not included in this model, its results cannot reflect iceberg impacts. Using this model to rule out the influence of mCDW is unconvincing. For instance, the statement in Lines 290–291 that "heat becomes less effectively expressed at the surface" lacks supporting evidence, as Figure 3g shows that the surface layer was colder prior to 2010, indicating that the surface has actually warmed.
5. The Discussion section (Section 4) does not introduce new evidence. Instead, it merely combines previously published viewpoints (some of which are not from the study region) to infer the plausibility of the findings. This is not standard practice for a scientific paper, and the credibility of this section is therefore questionable.
6. The description of data processing in Section 2.2 is overly detailed, particularly in Section 2.2.4 and subsequent subsections. I recommend removing the descriptions of standard or widely known methods.
Minor Comments
The abstract should include some quantitative descriptions.
Line 3, an event-based detection framework: The meaning of this phrase is unclear.
Line 8-9, domain-wide annual cumulative intensity shifting to substantially more negative values: Without knowing the exact definition of "annual cumulative intensity," it is impossible to understand what "more negative values" implies.
Line 25: Please remove the hyphen in "ice-shelf".
Line 140: The full name of mCDW is not necessary here.
Line 205, a persistent inflow and recirculation pathway centered on the Adélie Sill: Neither inflow nor recirculation is evident in the figure.
Line 207, eastward toward Mertz Depression: There is no eastward flow shown in the figure.
Line 216-219: This paragraph lacks supporting figures and is difficult to understand.
Caption of Fig. 2: Starting from the end of the second line, the text describes the phenomena revealed by the figure. This information has already been discussed in the main text and should not be included in the figure caption. Please add explanations for the lines and colors in the figure. For example, as mentioned in Figure 1: "The red dashed outline indicates the pre-2010 extent of the Mertz Glacier Tongue before calving." Additionally, the MGT in this figure is shown in two different shades; what do they represent?
Fig. 2: Yellow triangles are used to represent Iceberg B09B. It is recommended to use the actual iceberg outlines as shown in Figure 1. How were the positions of these icebergs obtained?
Line 234, From 2011 onward, annual MCSice cumulative intensity closely follows the post-calving drift and grounding of B09B: This statement is unclear.
Line 238, consistent with a persistent surface-cold state along the B09B-modiffed circulation pathway: Is there supporting evidence for this claim?
Line 288, after 2011 the cool upper layer extends deeper into the water column: Figure 3g does not support this assertion. Figure 3g shows that the temperature structure before 2010 and after 2014 is not significantly different; the changes only occurred between these two years.
Sections 3.4 and 3.5: Please include the corresponding figure numbers after each argument.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2171-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 220 | 78 | 31 | 329 | 20 | 23 |
- HTML: 220
- PDF: 78
- XML: 31
- Total: 329
- BibTeX: 20
- EndNote: 23
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Hello! Forgive my not good English. I am not expert but am interested in icebergs. This is an interesting topic to connect to icebergs.
Question 1: I try to look quickly into cold-spells and also the heatwaves which you mention on Line 20. Do you think the heatwaves lessen in area? It seem that in Fig. 2 of Gurumoorthi & Luis, 2026, your area is also one of not-hot areas in their study which is nicely consistent with your cold-spells.
Question 2: Good that there is "3D" data for many variables in Line 125 in B-SOSE. I checked the linked and there was an archive of SOSE (not yet the B-SOSE now) for until back 2005. Do you think adding this is great for your Fig. 3 or the one now is sufficient?
Question 3: Can you italics the penguin scientific name in Line 395 on next correction? I think it is better that way.
Question 4: Can you choose between the 2 Fischer on Line 470 on next correction? Maybe it was not taken when correcting, so it appears double now.
Overall, this is a very great read and I enjoy the flow throughout. Looking forward for progress on your paper!
References
Gurumoorthi, K., Luis, A.J. Southern Ocean marine heatwaves: variability, hotspots and teleconnections. J Oceanogr 82, 1–24 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10872-025-00769-5