Assessment of sub-shelf melting parameterisations using the ocean–ice-sheet coupled model NEMO(v3.6)–Elmer/Ice(v8.3)

Favier, Lionel; Jourdain, Nicolas C.; Jenkins, Adrian; Merino, Nacho; Durand, Gaël; Gagliardini, Olivier; Gillet-Chaulet, Fabien; Mathiot, Pierre

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2255-2019

Articles | Volume 12, issue 6

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2255-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-12-2255-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 12, issue 6

Model experiment description paper

|

12 Jun 2019

Model experiment description paper |

| 12 Jun 2019

Assessment of sub-shelf melting parameterisations using the ocean–ice-sheet coupled model NEMO(v3.6)–Elmer/Ice(v8.3)

Lionel Favier, Nicolas C. Jourdain, Adrian Jenkins, Nacho Merino, Gaël Durand, Olivier Gagliardini, Fabien Gillet-Chaulet, and Pierre Mathiot

Download

Final revised paper (published on 12 Jun 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 15 Feb 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of Favier et al. "Assessment of Sub-Shelf Melting Parameterisations Using theOcean-Ice Sheet Coupled Model NEMO(v3.6)-Elmer/Ice(v8.3)"', Anonymous Referee #1, 19 Mar 2019
- AC1: 'Response to anonymous referee RC1 on "Assessment of Sub-Shelf Melting Parameterisations Using the Ocean-Ice Sheet Coupled Model NEMO(v3.6)-Elmer/Ice(v8.3)" by Favier et al.', Lionel Favier, 26 Apr 2019
RC2: 'Review of Favier et al., ‘Assessment of Sub-Shelf Melting Parameterisations Using the Ocean-Ice sheet Coupled Model NEMO(v3.6)-Elmer/Ice(v8.3)'', Anonymous Referee #2, 22 Mar 2019
- AC2: 'Response to anonymous referee RC2 on "Assessment of Sub-Shelf Melting Parameterisations Using the Ocean-Ice Sheet Coupled Model NEMO(v3.6)-Elmer/Ice(v8.3)" by Favier et al.', Lionel Favier, 26 Apr 2019
AC3: 'Difference between initial submission and revision for "Assessment of Sub-Shelf Melting Parameterisations Using the Ocean-Ice Sheet Coupled Model NEMO(v3.6)-Elmer/Ice(v8.3)" by Favier et al.', Lionel Favier, 26 Apr 2019

Peer-review completion

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

AR by Lionel Favier on behalf of the Authors (26 Apr 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (01 May 2019) by Alexander Robel

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (10 May 2019)

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (17 May 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Dear Favier et al.,

thanks a lot for revising the manuscript. All questions from the discussion were addressed appropriately. I strongly support the publication of this study after addressing some minor comments.

Minor comments (line numbers correspond to the marked-up, revised manuscript):
- page 1, line 20-22: This is formulated ambiguously: do you mean with “.. and apply them to more realistic regional configurations” that further work should try to assess their validity in more realistic setups or that more work is in general needed before one can test them in realistic configurations at all? In the latter case, please specify why.
- page 18, line 22-23: Do you mean that the pulse in the “Cold0” scenario only shows for the coupled runs and not for the parameterisations? Please clarify.
- page 18, line 29-33: It’s hard to tell, but for some coupled runs, melt rates in the “Warm0” case seem to increase first and then drop after 75 years.
- page 23, line 1: “50 to 100 Gt/a”? (about 50Gt/a for PME2 in Cold1, 100Gt/a for coupled in Cold1)
- page 23, line 2: maybe reformulate to “4 to 12mm of sea-level equivalent mass” since this is an idealized setup
- page 24, line 6: You could add that both, the plume emulator and the box parameterisation seem to do better than the simpler parameterisations for “Cold0”. Also the plume emulator seems to do quite okay for the “Cold1” case.
- page 24, line 18: Interesting to add: if you look at Figure 6, e.g., during the melt pulse in the beginning, the order seems to be reversed and melting decreases with the number of boxes.
- page 26, line 4: “Plume parameterisation configuration” instead of “coupled model configuration”?

Technical comments:
• page 18, line 4: get
• page 18, line 27: compared
• page 26, line 35: idealized

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (17 May 2019) by Alexander Robel

AR by Lionel Favier on behalf of the Authors (22 May 2019) Author's response Manuscript

Short summary

The melting at the base of floating ice shelves is the main driver of the Antarctic ice sheet current retreat. Here, we use an ideal set-up to assess a wide range of melting parameterisations depending on oceanic properties with regard to a new ocean–ice-sheet coupled model, published here for the first time. A parameterisation that depends quadratically on thermal forcing in both a local and a non-local way yields the best results and needs to be further assessed with more realistic set-ups.