the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Modelling and Parameterisation of Ice-Shelf Melting in the Amundsen Sea, Antarctica
Abstract. Ice loss from the Amundsen Sea sector of West Antarctica is a major contributor to global sea-level rise, and is a key source of uncertainty in projections of sea level over the coming centuries. This ice loss is ultimately driven by changes in ocean melting, which must therefore be represented in ice-sheet model forecasts. In this study we use high-resolution ocean simulations to understand the mechanisms controlling ice-shelf melting in the eastern Amundsen Sea. Melting is focussed on four ‘hot spots’ of melting of the deep ice where the main glacier trunks cross the grounding line. Secondary areas of elevated melting occur beneath the associated buoyant ‘meltwater outflows’, which are guided by ice topography and Coriolis force. The simulations are then used to test simple local parameterisations of melting. The best parameterisation expresses melt rate as a simple function of ocean temperature to the power 3/2, ice slope to the power 1/2, and tapered to zero near the grounding line. This matches the simulated melting with r2=0.65, capturing melting hot spots near the grounding line but failing to represent melting along meltwater outflow paths. This parameterisation also broadly captures the strong melting feedbacks that appear when the model is applied to possible future ice geometries. It is possible that simple local melting parameterisations may be sufficient wherever ice shelf buttressing is focussed near the grounding line (such as Thwaites Glacier), but may be inadequate in regions where melting beneath shear margins controls buttressing (such as Pine Island Glacier).
- Preprint
(4307 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2835', Franka Jesse, 09 Jul 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-2835', Anonymous Referee #2, 20 Jul 2026
The authors of this manuscript first review the importance and conceptual background for simple ice-shelf melting parameterisations. Then, they propose new expressions for simple parameterisations and evaluate them in comparison to high-resolution (400m) ocean simulations of the Eastern Amundsen Sea. They show best performance for the parameterisation that expresses melt rate as a function of ocean temperature to the power 3/2 and ice slope to the power 1/2.
This manuscript is very well written, and the theoretical considerations on melt parameterisations (section 2.2) are very clear and interesting in and of themselves. The comparison with the high-resolution model is convincing and the caveats are clearly stated. Improving ice-shelf melting parameterisations has a large potential impact on the quality of ice-sheet and sea-level projections.
I recommend the acceptation of this manuscript for publication in The Cryosphere, and I just have a few minor comments that the authors may or may not address.
Minor comments.
- L. 94: expand “PIG” at first use.
- Section 2.1.1: please indicate a model version or a repository of the used code to ensure future interpretability if important parts of the code happen to change substantially.
- Figs. 2, 3, 4: the captions should indicate that the figures are obtained from a single simulation and specify from which T,S restoring profile.
- L. 344-351: Is the model-parameterisation misfit calculated for all grid points and all sets of T,S restoring profiles? This could be more explicit.
- L. 380: at the first use of “m/y” as melt rate units, it would be good to link to standard units, with something like “100 m/y (meters of ice per year: 1 m/y = 917 kg/m2/y)”.
- L. 436: “We only consider the time-mean melt rates, neglecting the influence of turbulent eddies”. I don’t think this is completely true. If you average melt rates, then you average the influence of eddies rather than neglecting their influence (e.g. a linear melting law is proportional to <uT> = <u’T’> + <u> <T> with <u’T’> including the effect of eddies). A more important caveat is probably the absence of tides, both for their direct contribution to ocean currents and for the intrusion of seawater into the grounding zone as the ice shelf moves up and down (Mamer et al. 2025).
- “correlation”, “coefficient of best fit” and “coefficient of determination” are all used to refer to r2. It would be easier to read with single naming.
- Section 3.4: A comment on the poor result of the m = C zb parameterisation would be welcome.
- The discussion could include a small paragraph on the simplification obtained from using constant and uniform T,S restoring profiles in the simulations. In a more realistic application, spatial and temporal variations make it less obvious to choose where to sample the far-field ocean properties. This is nonetheless unlikely to affect the comparisons between the different parametrisations.
Reference:
Mamer, M. S., Robel, A. A., Lai, C. C., Wilson, E. and Washam, P. (2025). Modeling mixing and melting in laminar seawater intrusions under grounded ice. The Cryosphere, 9(8), 3227-3251.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-2835-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 169 | 66 | 16 | 251 | 12 | 12 |
- HTML: 169
- PDF: 66
- XML: 16
- Total: 251
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 12
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Please find attached a pdf with my review of “Modelling and Parameterisation of Ice-Shelf Melting in the Amundsen Sea, Antarctica" by Holland et al.