the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Calibration of a coupled ice sheet-ocean model using observations of ice dynamics and basal melt in West Antarctica
Abstract. Coupled ice sheet-ocean models are increasingly used to investigate the complex interactions between ice dynamics and ocean forcing in West Antarctica, yet uncertainties in model parameters limit confidence in long-term sea-level projections. Among these parameters, ocean-model melt rates are typically calibrated using only basal melt observations for static ice-shelf geometries, neglecting feedbacks associated with evolving ice geometry, particularly in the Amundsen Sea sector.
Here, we calibrate a fully coupled ice sheet-ocean model using an ensemble of simulations constrained by spatial observations of basal melt rates and changes in ice speed and thickness over a historical period. This represents the first calibration to jointly incorporate oceanic and glaciological observations for optimizing melt-rate parameters. To match the historical observations of ice dynamical changes, the transient-coupled calibration favours parameter values that enhance basal melt near deep grounding lines, highlighting the sensitivity of ice dynamics to localized ocean forcing.
Using the historically-calibrated model, we provide century-scale projections of sea-level contribution under two scenarios: present-day control and warm RCP8.5 forcing. In the warm case, the transient-coupled calibration increases projected 2100 sea-level rise by 14 mm relative to a melt-only calibration. This exceeds the 7 mm difference simulated between the two climate scenarios. These findings underscore the critical importance of jointly validating against oceanic and glaciological observations in model calibration.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of The Cryosphere.
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.- Preprint
(12005 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: final response (author comments only)
- RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-931', Xylar Asay-Davis, 13 Apr 2026
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-931', Anonymous Referee #2, 28 Apr 2026
The authors present a new calibration approach for coupled ice sheet-ocean models. Instead of calibrating against observations of basal melt rates alone, they calibrate against combined datasets of basal melt rates, changes in ice thickness, and changes in ice speed. Additionally, the authors modified the 3-equation parametrization for basal melt to elevate basal melt rates while keeping overall melt low. Furthermore, a dynamic ice-shelf geometry was used during calibration. An optimal parameter set for the Amundsen Sea sector has been identified and used for an extreme-case future emission scenario. This run has been compared with a model run calibrated using the common approach: static ice shelves, a simple 3-equation formulation, and only basal melt. The authors show that calibration matters for sea-level projections, and common calibration approaches might lead to an underestimation of ice mass loss.
The paper is very well written and structured. The figures are of high quality and well-chosen to support the main text. The motivation is clear, and the experimental design is well-designed. I like the detailed description of the models and methods used. I also very much like the detailed discussion of limitations and potential next steps.
However, I have two general remarks:
You mention equifinality, and that different parameter combinations yield similar good fits during calibration. Your Figure B4, however, indicates that individual basins show different fits even when the combined calibration shows equifinality. E.g., the Pine Island sector requires a somewhat larger heat transfer coefficient than the other basins for lather transition heights to match the optimal parameter setting you have chosen. I was wondering whether you could discuss what makes Pine Island special in this regard compared to PSK and Thwaites, and whether this information could be generalized to some extent.
The other remark is about your experimental design. You nicely demonstrate the improvement in melt rates achieved by your approach compared to what is usually done. However, you apply three changes simultaneously: 1) calibration for three different datasets; 2) adaptation of the 3-eq-formulation; 3) dynamic geometry. While you show sensitivity to calibration across single datasets in your Figure B1-4 (which I like very much), it is difficult to tell how much of the improvement comes from the dynamic geometry and how much from the changes in the melt parametrization. It would be helpful to discuss that.
Specific comments:
- Figure 1b: At first, it was difficult for me to recognize that the white area is ocean (presumably because I associate white with ice). Maybe it would be more intuitive to chose a different face color here.
- Figure 2: The transition zone is a bit difficult to distinguish from the colormap. Maybe use a different color for it.
- Equation 1: Where do parameters “Gamma_Turb” and “Gamma_Mole” come from?
- L105: “Ice fronts were fixed”: This is also true for the future runs, I assume? If this is the case, how could this affect future sea level projections?
- L280: Why two different reanalysis data sets? Could there be any inconsistencies arising at the domain boundaries?
- L330: “we adopt a spatially-uniform error”. Why 5 m yr-1? Please justify.
- L453: “which we keep fix in our simulations”. Please clarify that it is fix only in your hindcast simulations.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2026-931-RC2
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 785 | 756 | 70 | 1,611 | 77 | 113 |
- HTML: 785
- PDF: 756
- XML: 70
- Total: 1,611
- BibTeX: 77
- EndNote: 113
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
See attached pdf.