@article{ReeseAlbrechtMengeletal.2018, author = {Reese, Ronja and Albrecht, Torsten and Mengel, Matthias and Asay-Davis, Xylar and Winkelmann, Ricarda}, title = {Antarctic sub-shelf melt rates via PICO}, series = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, volume = {12}, journal = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, number = {6}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1994-0416}, doi = {10.5194/tc-12-1969-2018}, pages = {1969 -- 1985}, year = {2018}, abstract = {Ocean-induced melting below ice shelves is one of the dominant drivers for mass loss from the Antarctic Ice Sheet at present. An appropriate representation of sub-shelf melt rates is therefore essential for model simulations of marine-based ice sheet evolution. Continental-scale ice sheet models often rely on simple melt-parameterizations, in particular for long-term simulations, when fully coupled ice-ocean interaction becomes computationally too expensive. Such parameterizations can account for the influence of the local depth of the ice-shelf draft or its slope on melting. However, they do not capture the effect of ocean circulation underneath the ice shelf. Here we present the Potsdam Ice-shelf Cavity mOdel (PICO), which simulates the vertical overturning circulation in ice-shelf cavities and thus enables the computation of sub-shelf melt rates consistent with this circulation. PICO is based on an ocean box model that coarsely resolves ice shelf cavities and uses a boundary layer melt formulation. We implement it as a module of the Parallel Ice Sheet Model (PISM) and evaluate its performance under present-day conditions of the Southern Ocean. We identify a set of parameters that yield two-dimensional melt rate fields that qualitatively reproduce the typical pattern of comparably high melting near the grounding line and lower melting or refreezing towards the calving front. PICO captures the wide range of melt rates observed for Antarctic ice shelves, with an average of about 0.1 ma(-1) for cold sub-shelf cavities, for example, underneath Ross or Ronne ice shelves, to 16 ma(-1) for warm cavities such as in the Amundsen Sea region. This makes PICO a computationally feasible and more physical alternative to melt parameterizations purely based on ice draft geometry.}, language = {en} } @article{SeroussiNowickiPayneetal.2020, author = {Seroussi, Helene and Nowicki, Sophie and Payne, Antony J. and Goelzer, Heiko and Lipscomb, William H. and Abe-Ouchi, Ayako and Agosta, Cecile and Albrecht, Torsten and Asay-Davis, Xylar and Barthel, Alice and Calov, Reinhard and Cullather, Richard and Dumas, Christophe and Galton-Fenzi, Benjamin K. and Gladstone, Rupert and Golledge, Nicholas R. and Gregory, Jonathan M. and Greve, Ralf and Hattermann, Tore and Hoffman, Matthew J. and Humbert, Angelika and Huybrechts, Philippe and Jourdain, Nicolas C. and Kleiner, Thomas and Larour, Eric and Leguy, Gunter R. and Lowry, Daniel P. and Little, Chistopher M. and Morlighem, Mathieu and Pattyn, Frank and Pelle, Tyler and Price, Stephen F. and Quiquet, Aurelien and Reese, Ronja and Schlegel, Nicole-Jeanne and Shepherd, Andrew and Simon, Erika and Smith, Robin S. and Straneo, Fiammetta and Sun, Sainan and Trusel, Luke D. and Van Breedam, Jonas and van de Wal, Roderik S. W. and Winkelmann, Ricarda and Zhao, Chen and Zhang, Tong and Zwinger, Thomas}, title = {ISMIP6 Antarctica}, series = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, volume = {14}, journal = {The Cryosphere : TC ; an interactive open access journal of the European Geosciences Union}, number = {9}, publisher = {Copernicus}, address = {G{\"o}ttingen}, issn = {1994-0416}, doi = {10.5194/tc-14-3033-2020}, pages = {3033 -- 3070}, year = {2020}, abstract = {Ice flow models of the Antarctic ice sheet are commonly used to simulate its future evolution in response to different climate scenarios and assess the mass loss that would contribute to future sea level rise. However, there is currently no consensus on estimates of the future mass balance of the ice sheet, primarily because of differences in the representation of physical processes, forcings employed and initial states of ice sheet models. This study presents results from ice flow model simulations from 13 international groups focusing on the evolution of the Antarctic ice sheet during the period 2015-2100 as part of the Ice Sheet Model Intercomparison for CMIP6 (ISMIP6). They are forced with outputs from a subset of models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), representative of the spread in climate model results. Simulations of the Antarctic ice sheet contribution to sea level rise in response to increased warming during this period varies between 7:8 and 30.0 cm of sea level equivalent (SLE) under Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5 scenario forcing. These numbers are relative to a control experiment with constant climate conditions and should therefore be added to the mass loss contribution under climate conditions similar to present-day conditions over the same period. The simulated evolution of the West Antarctic ice sheet varies widely among models, with an overall mass loss, up to 18.0 cm SLE, in response to changes in oceanic conditions. East Antarctica mass change varies between 6 :1 and 8.3 cm SLE in the simulations, with a significant increase in surface mass balance outweighing the increased ice discharge under most RCP 8.5 scenario forcings. The inclusion of ice shelf collapse, here assumed to be caused by large amounts of liquid water ponding at the surface of ice shelves, yields an additional simulated mass loss of 28mm compared to simulations without ice shelf collapse. The largest sources of uncertainty come from the climate forcing, the ocean-induced melt rates, the calibration of these melt rates based on oceanic conditions taken outside of ice shelf cavities and the ice sheet dynamic response to these oceanic changes. Results under RCP 2.6 scenario based on two CMIP5 climate models show an additional mass loss of 0 and 3 cm of SLE on average compared to simulations done under present-day conditions for the two CMIP5 forcings used and display limited mass gain in East Antarctica.}, language = {en} }