the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Fast approximation of Antarctica’s GIA response to future ice melt with 3-D Earth structure
Abstract. Projections of Antarctic ice mass loss and associated sea level contributions over the coming centuries are intrinsically linked to glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), a process by which changing ice sheets deform the solid Earth and sea surface. Altering bedrock topography and sea levels at the grounding line, GIA exerts a strong control on marine ice sheet dynamics, especially on the multi-century timescales to be considered in ISMIP7 (Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison Project for the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project - Phase 7). To accurately capture bedrock and sea level changes, ice sheet models must be coupled with GIA models that include realistic spatial variations in solid Earth structure. However, GIA models that incorporate 3-D variations in Earth structure are computationally expensive, limiting their use in ice sheet modelling. Consequently, most ice sheet models still assume rigid bedrock topography or rely on simple GIA models that neglect realistic lateral variations in Earth structure. Here, we assess the performance of FastIsostasy, a computationally-efficient regional 2-D GIA model, relative to Seakon, a state-of-the-art 3-D GIA model, in iteratively coupled ice sheet – GIA simulations of Antarctic Ice Sheet evolution over the next five centuries. Coupled simulations that employ FastIsotasy produce GIA, ice thickness, and grounding line predictions that closely match those from simulations using Seakon, and, more specifically, perform better than ice sheet simulations that rely on overly simplified GIA models. With the protocols for ISMIP7 under active development, FastIsostasy offers a viable approach for ice sheet modellers to accurately and efficiently capture solid Earth – ice sheet feedbacks, permitting improved projections of Antarctic ice mass change and associated sea level contributions over the coming centuries.
- Preprint
(30457 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(20360 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 29 Jul 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2640', Holly Han, 07 Jul 2026
reply
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://egusphere.copernicus.org/preprints/2026/egusphere-2026-2640/egusphere-2026-2640-CC1-supplement.pdfReplyCitation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-2640-CC1 -
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2640', Matt King, 09 Jul 2026
reply
The authors present an analysis of the FastIsostacy code against a fully featured 3D GIA code, Seakon, in the context of an iteratively-coupled ice sheet/GIA model. Such a code would provide practical benefit to sea level projection realism and is a very worthy topic with potential for significant downstream impact. The work finds that these two models are in pretty close agreement, happily so, and certainly much better agreement than with ELRA style models. The work is well suited to TC and will be of wide interest to those working with ice sheet models, especially given the speed of the FastIsostacy model and its potential for coupling to ice sheet models. The paper is clearly written and makes good use of figures.
I don't have any major concerns, although I think there are things that do need revising.
Section 2.3.2 outlines the weak earth model which reaches to just below 10^19 Pa s in regions where the geodetic data have suggested more like 3x10^18. I think this section and 2.3.1 should summarise the range of upper mantle viscosities and here or in the discussion note that the model doesn't go as low as the obs may suggest and what issue that may cause. This is important for the ASE, especially since most of the ice loss will occur there this century. That is, the testing in this paper doesn't cover the viscosities most relevant to the near future. Out of interest, is this a technical restriction in Seakon or FastIsostacy or both that prevented going to lower viscosities?
Section 3.1 . The focus in the text is mean differences, but I think max abs(diff) needs reporting also. These are much larger. Figure 4 could have 2 further panels to show maximum differences. This applies to all subsequent discussions. I presume the means are spatial means computed over the common grounded ice sheet? Further, the regions where the differences are largest is also worth mentioning. They are all at the grounding line. This difference may affect different types of ice sheet models in different ways., notably those that resolve grounding line regions differently.
The quite bold statement on L284 that more complex GIA models than Fastisostacy probably needs the caveat that it applies to the class of ice sheet model used here and within the range of mantle viscosities tested.
As a separate note, I wonder if the bedrock topography offshore, which controls warm water pathways, is also little different between the two approaches. This isn't relevant to the ice-GIA coupling, but it is for the ocean-ice-GIA system. That may be something to comment on in discussion if it is trivial to compute.
L58 benchmarks are referred to lacks an explicit reference to Swierczek-Jereczek et al., 2024 and I think it should be cited again in this sentence to avoid confusion. I think some quantification of "performed well in benchmarks" would be appropriate for the introduction.
More minor remarks:
L148 it may not be necessary to modify the example of Wilkes Subglacial Basin, but I note the paper by Hansen and Emry suggests there could be lower-viscosity mantle in this region. https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02140-4
L212 re RCP8.5 - it is appropriate to say that this is no longer regarded a realistic pathway due to climate mitigation and hence is an extreme upper bound for comparing the models. https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/19/2627/2026/
L244 references Fig 2a, but I think 2c,f is meant.
the discussion of Figure 7 would be improved by referencing the individual panels of the figure in the text.
Conclusions. Perhaps some comment could be made about the coupling interface and how this may or may not suit other ice models.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2640-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 120 | 57 | 10 | 187 | 29 | 8 | 7 |
- HTML: 120
- PDF: 57
- XML: 10
- Total: 187
- Supplement: 29
- BibTeX: 8
- EndNote: 7
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1