Kinematic response of ice-rise divides to changes in ocean and atmosphere forcing

Schannwell, Clemens; Drews, Reinhard; Ehlers, Todd A.; Eisen, Olaf; Mayer, Christoph; Gillet-Chaulet, Fabien

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2673-2019

Articles | Volume 13, issue 10

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2673-2019

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

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-13-2673-2019

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

Articles | Volume 13, issue 10

Research article

|

14 Oct 2019

Research article |

| 14 Oct 2019

Kinematic response of ice-rise divides to changes in ocean and atmosphere forcing

Clemens Schannwell, Reinhard Drews, Todd A. Ehlers, Olaf Eisen, Christoph Mayer, and Fabien Gillet-Chaulet

Download

Final revised paper (published on 14 Oct 2019)
Preprint (discussion started on 21 Feb 2019)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Anonymous Referee #1, 10 May 2019
- AC1: 'Response to both reviews', Clemens Schannwell, 07 Aug 2019
RC2: 'Review of "Kinematic Response of Ice-rise Divides to Changes in Oceanic and Atmospheric Forcing" by Shannwell et al.', Anonymous Referee #2, 10 Jun 2019
- AC1: 'Response to both reviews', Clemens Schannwell, 07 Aug 2019
- AC2: 'Difference between initial submission and revised submission', Clemens Schannwell, 07 Aug 2019

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (13 Aug 2019) by Carlos Martin

AR by Clemens Schannwell on behalf of the Authors (13 Aug 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (15 Aug 2019) by Carlos Martin

RR by Anonymous Referee #2 (27 Aug 2019)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Overview:
The authors have done an excellent job of responding to my concerns. I believe this to be a very well-written paper with some very nice results and recommend publication once a few very minor issues are addressed:

Minor issues:
1. Title: It appears you changed the title from “oceanic” to “ocean” forcing. There is now a consistency difference with “ocean” and “atmospheric”. (You might want to make it either “oceanic and atmospheric”, or “ocean and atmosphere”. Or you might not want to change it at all. I just wanted to point it out)

2. Figure 1: Caption has “Please not that…” -- should be “note”

3. Figure 2 and related captions: I actually agree with the other reviewer that having (a), etc be leading rather than trailing is clearer, as in “shows schematic (a) steady state, (b) divide migration… “

4. Page 4, line 2: I don’t think that “parameter” is the right word here. Perhaps “phenomenon” or “process”, or “instance”?

5. Page 7, line 26. There should be an “and” after “parameters”

6. Page 8, line 11: There should likely be a “:” after “simulations”

7. Page 9, line 1: “initial position” -> “initial positions”

8. Figure 6(d): The legend box obscures some of the “west” lines. I’d suggest either reducing the font (ensuring that readability is maintained), or shrinking the legends by removing the common text from all of the legend entries and putting in a sub-title at the top of the graph (which should allow for more flexibility in placing the legend). In other words, replace “Balance flux west = SMB flux - GL flux (500m)” with “west (500m)” and put “Balance flux = SMB flux - GL flux” as a subtitle for the graph. I’d suggest doing this throughout the paper, since it will improve readability.

9. Figure 8(b): same issue with the legend box obscuring the plot. I’d suggest pulling “Mean divide migration” out of the legends, which should shorten it enough to enable it to fit in the upper right.

10. Figure 8(c): It would make the plot much easier to interpret if you could re-order the entries in the legend to place “west” all on the left and then match cases on each line as follows:
West (no shelf) || East (no shelf) < line break>
West (50% shelf) || East (50% shelf) <line break>
West (90% shelf) || East (90% shelf) <line break>

11. P 21, line 1: I’d suggest using”finer than” rather than the <= symbol.

12. P 21, line 6: I’d suggest “as” instead of “being”

13. Figure 12: Would it be possible to show the ice profile along with the topography for context? (i.e, show the upper and lower surfaces of the ice in the cross-section at, say, the initial time)

14. P 25, line 27: I don’t think that “integral” is the right word here. Perhaps “important”, “essential”, “necessary”?

15. P. 26, line 4: “flank” -> “flanks”

Hide

ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (04 Sep 2019) by Carlos Martin

AR by Clemens Schannwell on behalf of the Authors (11 Sep 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

Ice rises are important ice-sheet features that archive the ice sheet's history in their internal structure. Here we use a 3-D numerical ice-sheet model to simulate mechanisms that lead to changes in the geometry of the internal structure. We find that changes in snowfall result in much larger and faster changes than similar changes in ice-shelf geometry. This result is integral to fully unlocking the potential of ice rises as ice-dynamic archives and potential ice-core drilling sites.