Simulation of the Greenland Ice Sheet over two glacial–interglacial cycles: investigating a sub-ice- shelf melt parameterization and relative sea level forcing in an ice-sheet–ice-shelf model

Bradley, Sarah L.; Reerink, Thomas J.; van de Wal, Roderik S. W.; Helsen, Michiel M.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-14-619-2018

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-14-619-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-14-619-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 14, issue 5

Research article

|

22 May 2018

Research article |

| 22 May 2018

Simulation of the Greenland Ice Sheet over two glacial–interglacial cycles: investigating a sub-ice- shelf melt parameterization and relative sea level forcing in an ice-sheet–ice-shelf model

Sarah L. Bradley, Thomas J. Reerink, Roderik S. W. van de Wal, and Michiel M. Helsen

Download

Final revised paper (published on 22 May 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 16 Oct 2017)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Bradley et al. (2017)', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Nov 2017
- AC1: 'Response to Reviewer 1', Sarah Louise Bradley, 28 Jan 2018
RC2: 'Review of Bradley et al., 2017 manuscript', Ilaria Tabone, 23 Nov 2017
- AC2: 'Response to Reviewer 2 comments', Sarah Louise Bradley, 28 Jan 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (01 Feb 2018) by David Thornalley

AR by Sarah Louise Bradley on behalf of the Authors (03 Feb 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Feb 2018) by David Thornalley

RR by Ilaria Tabone (07 Mar 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Second round review for the manuscript “Simulation of the Greenland Ice sheet over two glacial cycles: Investigating a sub-ice shelf melt parameterisation and relative sea level forcing in an ice sheet-ice shelf model.” by Bradley et al.

I thank the authors for the effort they made to reduce the length of the manuscript. The main objective of the work is now clearer and the structure of the experiment easier to follow. However, there are still some points I would like the authors to clarify and, generally, I think the manuscript should be carefully revised to avoid typos and hard-to-understand sentences.

General comments:

1. I am still confused about the usage of eustatic sea level (ESL) and sea level equivalent (SLE) acronyms. It seems to me that in the first part of the introduction you use ”ESL” for both eustatic sea level and the unit of sea level equivalent, while in the second part you refer to “ESL” as the eustatic sea level. I suggest to be more precise in these definitions.

2. This manuscript has many points in common with Tabone et al., 2017, since both works tackle the same topic from two different approaches and have been published in CPD around the same time. Their model sub-shelf melting parameterisation (SSM), which depends on, allows the GrIS to expand onto the continental shelf in glacial times. Thus, I would not say that there isn’t any ice-sheet model which is able to simulate a reliable GrIS glacial extent and ice volume (lines 60-63, pag. 2), since this is in constrast to what is found in Tabone et al., 2017.
Also, since their sub-shelf melting (SSM) parameterisation is not based on changes in water depth, as it is in this manuscript, but rather on the PD-LGM ocean temperature anomaly, I suggest to spend a few words about it. It could be included, for example, in the description of the SSM schemes used to address the expansion of the GrIS beyond the PD margin (lines 72-83, pag.1-2).

3. The description of the RSL forcing (Section 3.3) is clearer than in the first version of the manuscript. However, there is one point which is not completely crystal to me. If I understood well, you are able to create a “predicted” ΔWD signal by taking ΔGNL and ΔRNL from the GIA model and ΔRL from the ice-sheet model, provided with a ELRA scheme (following Eq. 6). Then you compare this signal to the ΔWD obtained from Eq. 5 to get the “missing” ΔGL component (lines 291-293, pag. 8) and you see that this term is negligible for your purposes. What is not clear to me is how you directly produce Fig. 3f, i.e. the total ΔWD signal from Eq. 5. Maybe you directly know the terms ΔGT and ΔRT. If this is the case, where these total geoid (ΔGT) and solid earth (ΔRT) terms come from?

4. Try to stick to one verb tense (past, present or future), without passing from past to future throughout the same sentence or a couple of them.

Other specific and technical comments are attached in the pdf file.

Referee Report: PDF

Hide

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (12 Mar 2018)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (04 Apr 2018) by David Thornalley

AR by Sarah Louise Bradley on behalf of the Authors (20 Apr 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (27 Apr 2018) by David Thornalley

AR by Sarah Louise Bradley on behalf of the Authors (02 May 2018) Author's response Manuscript