Preprints
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-436
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-436
04 Feb 2026
 | 04 Feb 2026
Status: this preprint is open for discussion and under review for The Cryosphere (TC).

Comparing calving laws at Greenland’s three largest ice shelves

Jamie Barnett, Felicity A. Holmes, Sarah L. Greenwood, Mathieu Morlighem, Nina Kirchner, and Martin Jakobsson

Abstract. The retreat of Greenlandic glaciers through calving has major implications for the ice sheet's mass balance and future sea-level rise contributions. Despite its importance, the implementation of calving in ice sheet models remains contested, with several calving laws suggested to parametrise this process. While the performance of some of these calving laws has been tested for Antarctic ice shelves and Greenland's grounded outlet glaciers, it is unclear which calving law would best capture the observed behaviour of Greenland's ice shelves. Petermann, Ryder, and Nioghalvfjerdsbræ (79N) glaciers are fronted by Greenland's three largest ice shelves, accounting for 90 % of the remaining floating ice and buttressing ~15 % of the ice sheet's mass. Here we build on other systematic calving studies by comparing five calving laws at Greenland's three largest ice shelves using the Ice-sheet and Sea-level System Model (ISSM). We begin by constraining the performance of each law against observed terminus fluctuations between 2008 and 2024, and continue with projections to 2300 under various climate forcings. When evaluated against observed terminus changes, we recommend the use of a von Mises or Crevasse Depth calving law owing to their consistent performance and similar tuning parameters across the three ice shelves. However, in our extended projection runs, we find that calving parametrisations have little influence on grounding line discharge rates, which are instead driven by the choice of climate forcings. Large ice shelf calving or collapse events are scarce, and only in these rare cases do we find any pronounced grounding line response. Our results indicate either continued buttressing potential from Greenland's ice shelves into the coming centuries or fundamental flaws in the current set of calving laws that involve calibrating to contemporary ice-shelf behaviour.

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
Jamie Barnett, Felicity A. Holmes, Sarah L. Greenwood, Mathieu Morlighem, Nina Kirchner, and Martin Jakobsson

Status: open (until 18 Mar 2026)

Comment types: AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse
Jamie Barnett, Felicity A. Holmes, Sarah L. Greenwood, Mathieu Morlighem, Nina Kirchner, and Martin Jakobsson
Jamie Barnett, Felicity A. Holmes, Sarah L. Greenwood, Mathieu Morlighem, Nina Kirchner, and Martin Jakobsson
Metrics will be available soon.
Latest update: 04 Feb 2026
Download
Short summary
Computer models used to predict future change of the Greenland Ice Sheet are uncertain, especially in how they represent iceberg calving. We compare several calving approaches by testing model results against satellite observations of changes at three unique floating ice shelves in Greenland. We then extend the simulations to the year 2300 to explore future ice loss, finding that warming of the atmosphere or ocean is more important than the choice of calving method.
Share