the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Late Pleistocene glacial terminations accelerated by proglacial lakes
Meike Scherrenberg
Constantijn Berends
Roderik van de Wal
Abstract. During the glacial cycles of the past 800 thousand years, Eurasia and North America were periodically covered by large ice sheets. While the Late Pleistocene glacial cycles typically lasted 80 – 120 thousand years, the termination phases only took 10 thousand years to complete. During these glacial terminations, the North American and Eurasian ice sheets retreated which created large proglacial lakes in front of the ice sheet margin. Proglacial lakes accelerate the deglaciation as they can facilitate ice shelves in the southern margins of the North American and the Eurasian ice sheets. Ice shelves are characterized by basal melting, low surface elevations and negligible friction at the base. Here we quantify the effect of proglacial lakes, and the combined effect with glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) on Late Pleistocene glacial terminations.
We find that proglacial lakes accelerate the deglaciation of the ice sheets mainly because of the absence of basal friction underneath ice shelves. If the friction underneath grounded ice is applied to floating ice, we find that full deglaciation is postponed by a few millennia, the Barents-Kara Sea region does not fully deglaciate, and there are no extensive ice shelves. Additionally, the large uncertainty in melt rates underneath lacustrine ice shelves translates to an uncertainty in the timing of the termination of only a few centuries at most.
Proglacial lakes are created by the depression in the landscape that linger after the ice sheet has retreated. The depth, size and timing of proglacial lakes depend on the bedrock rebound. We find that if the bedrock rebounds within a few centuries, instead of a few millennia, the mass loss rate of the ice sheet is substantially reduced. This is because fast bedrock rebound prevents the formation of extensive proglacial lakes. Additionally, a decrease in thickness is partly compensated by the faster bedrock rebound, resulting in a higher surface elevation with lower temperatures and higher surface mass balance delaying deglaciation. We find that a very long bedrock relaxation time does not affect terminations substantially, but will lead to a later inception of the next glacial period. This is because initial inception regions, such as North-Western Canada, remain below sea level throughout the preceding interglacial period.
- Preprint
(4310 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Meike Scherrenberg et al.
Status: open (until 21 Oct 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on cp-2023-42', Niall Gandy, 08 Aug 2023
reply
Review of “Late Pleistocene glacial terminations accelerated by proglacial lakes” by Scherrenberg et al.
Signed: Niall Gandy
This manuscript presents ice sheet simulations of the past 800 ka BP, using various idealised modelling approaches to better understand the affect of proglacial lakes during deglaciation phases. The authors show that the presence of proglacial lakes accelerate deglaciation, and they attribute this primarily to the negligible basal friction beneath ice shelves. Further simulations also demonstrate the sensitivity of the ice response to the rate of bedrock rebound.
Overall, I think the work presented here will be a significant contribution to understanding palaeo ice sheet behaviour, with the possibility of encouraging further model development and motivating future experimental design to include lake feedbacks. Indeed, this is a mechanism largely ignored in future simulations, and important progress made here could link with future projections. The work is clear and concise. The precision and clarity of the figures are excellent, with the exception of some minor points made below.
The manuscript would benefit from a clearer justification for the experimental design (and perhaps some more analysis), along with some minor points listed below. As such, I recommend publication after minor revisions.
Main points
Experimental design: I appreciate the novel approach of the experimental design, where you have made certain adjustments to better explore the ice sheet behaviour. However, the detailed justification for this is not explained sufficiently in the text, and I am left not fully convinced that your experiments explore the behaviour you intend. For example, the “Rough Water” experiment is designed to show the effect of negligible friction beneath ice shelves, but various feedbacks (surface profile, buttressing effects, a different GIA response to more grounded ice, ect) could be confusing the results. The experimental ethos could be explained in more detail. You could also undertake some offline ice shelf mass budgeting (at each timestep what is the flow over the grounding line, what is lost to surface melt, sub shelf melt, and calving) to disentangle the behaviour.
Specific points
18: linger > remain?
67: I think it is common to conflate susceptibility to MISI/PLISI and sub-shelf melting/calving. Could you clarify the mechanistic difference for the reader before this sentence?
80: Could you comment on the suitability of a Hybrid model to simulate PLISI and grounding line migration? How is this parameterized?
89: In some ways the lacustrine environment might be quite different from the marine environment; the thermal structure may be different, and lakes could become chocked with icebergs. From a practical modelling perspective it is reasonable that you treat marine and lacustrine the same, but you could discuss this further in the text.
93: Do you know (or could you know with some offline calculations) what proportion of the ice sheet margin is missing lakes because the model cannot simulate above sea level lakes?
101: merge > merged
108: Not unfeasible! Millennial scale coupled climate-ice sheet simulation studies do exist, but it is understandable why this is not a reasonable modelling choice here. Please clarify.
126: The use of brackets to describe the reverse behaviour is a tad tricky to follow.
164: A set 30% adjustment assumes that distal ice sheets fluctuate in unison with simulated ice sheets. Is this reasonable?
Figure 4: This figure is challenging to follow, particularly panels b, d, and f. Are the points of deglaciation onset numerically defined? The onset of glaciation curves are difficult to read; I would suggest either removing or replotting. Ideally we shouldn’t need a paragraph (lines 172-176) just to describe how to read a figure, not yet describing the results or discussion the implications.
190: Can you comment on the mechanism for the higher sensitivity of the Eurasian ice sheet?
211: The importance of the simulated ice shelves may depend on their spatial extent and if they are constrained laterally. It would be good to see a figure of simulated ice sheet location and morphometry.
216: I don’t follow the logic here?
Discussions: This section is very limited, it could be incorporated into the Results section.
315: It would be good to develop this point a little further. What are the potential effects of lakes on future Greenland? And do models represent this?
423: It would be preferable for the simulations to be reproducible without contacting the author.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-2023-42-RC1
Meike Scherrenberg et al.
Data sets
IMAU-ICE output M. D. W. Scherrenberg, C. J. Berends, R. S. W. van de Wal https://surfdrive.surf.nl/files/index.php/s/pxv9RF6pHwCzJbf
Model code and software
IMAU-ICE model code and Matlab scripts for figures M. D. W. Scherrenberg, C. J. Berends, R. S. W. van de Wal https://surfdrive.surf.nl/files/index.php/s/pxv9RF6pHwCzJbf
Meike Scherrenberg et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
285 | 111 | 11 | 407 | 7 | 6 |
- HTML: 285
- PDF: 111
- XML: 11
- Total: 407
- BibTeX: 7
- EndNote: 6
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1