The transferability of adjoint inversion products between different ice flow models

Barnes, Jowan M.; Dias dos Santos, Thiago; Goldberg, Daniel; Gudmundsson, G. Hilmar; Morlighem, Mathieu; De Rydt, Jan

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-1975-2021

Articles | Volume 15, issue 4

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-1975-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-15-1975-2021

© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 15, issue 4

Research article

|

23 Apr 2021

Research article |

| 23 Apr 2021

The transferability of adjoint inversion products between different ice flow models

Jowan M. Barnes, Thiago Dias dos Santos, Daniel Goldberg, G. Hilmar Gudmundsson, Mathieu Morlighem, and Jan De Rydt

Download

Final revised paper (published on 23 Apr 2021)
Preprint (discussion started on 21 Sep 2020)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

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

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review of The transferability of adjoint inversion products between different ice flow models by Barnes et al.', Anonymous Referee #1, 21 Sep 2020
- AC1: 'Response to Referee #1', Jowan Barnes, 28 Sep 2020
RC2: 'Review of “The transferability of adjoint inversion products between different ice flow models” by Barnes et al. for The Cryosphere', Cyrille Mosbeux, 20 Oct 2020
- AC2: 'Response to RC2', Jowan Barnes, 11 Dec 2020

Peer-review completion

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

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (15 Dec 2020) by Olivier Gagliardini

AR by Jowan Barnes on behalf of the Authors (26 Jan 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (03 Feb 2021) by Olivier Gagliardini

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (14 Feb 2021)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

Second Review of The transferability of adjoint inversion products between different ice flow models by Barnes et al.

This paper has improved significantly since my first review.

My comments are now mostly minor in nature.

Line 110. Completely optional, but it would be simpler to have a single equation (e.g., equation 2), with generic values for the coefficient (e.g., D) and vo, then simply say in Ua D=(Co+C)^(), in ISSM and Streamice D=beta^2. UA and SI use values of vo of xx and yy, respectively. ISSM uses vo=0 but….

Line 194. Not clear to me what it means “hydrostatically inverting for the bed” (is this on grounded or floating ice). If on grounded, please elaborate more. If just on the shelf, please say inverting for thickness (or the bottom of or thickness of the ice shelf – not the bed, which implies rock, not water).

Line 212 to better justify the assumption would be good to add …parts of Ua’s BC to zero, WHICH GENERALLY FOLLOWS THE CATCHMENT DIVIDE (assuming this is the case).

Line 230 – the part about interpolating to streamice. This seems true for some figures, but not for others. Why not just use the instersection of the two domains when comparing (as in earlier figures).

Line 348. The evolution… This sentence reaches a conclusion based on the results, before identifying what results are being discussed. Move sentence from line 351 before (i.e., so Figure 6 is called out first).

Figure 6. Please show each color line style in the legend, which should fit (use a two-column legend if you have to). It’s too confusing the way it’s currently presented.

Figure 7. Please put “Forward …” along the lefthand edge, rather than right. Consider using separate color tables for floating and grounded ice. As shown, it says more about the melt conditions than the model response.

General comment about the last couple of pages. I found the discussion of the comparisons with other MIPs to be to apples to oranges. You have far fewer models and less variation in parameters. That doesn’t mean your findings aren’t significant; just you are reaching a bit too far to provide context. Also at the top of page 17, the ISMIP6 results cited here cover 85, not 100 years. They also cover a huge range of melt and SMB forcing. If you look at the results in that paper for fixed forcings, applied to WAIS, the range is much smaller. Please cite the more relevant numbers (see Figure 8-11).

Hide

RR by Cyrille Mosbeux (25 Feb 2021)

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (26 Feb 2021) by Olivier Gagliardini

AR by Jowan Barnes on behalf of the Authors (05 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (10 Mar 2021) by Olivier Gagliardini

AR by Jowan Barnes on behalf of the Authors (10 Mar 2021) Author's response Author's tracked changes Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (11 Mar 2021) by Olivier Gagliardini

AR by Jowan Barnes on behalf of the Authors (11 Mar 2021) Manuscript

Short summary

Some properties of ice flow models must be initialised using observed data before they can be used to produce reliable predictions of the future. Different models have different ways of doing this, and the process is generally seen as being specific to an individual model. We compare the methods used by three different models and show that they produce similar outputs. We also demonstrate that the outputs from one model can be used in other models without introducing large uncertainties.