Articles | Volume 20, issue 4
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-2053-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-20-2053-2026
© Author(s) 2026. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| Highlight paper
| 
13 Apr 2026
Research article | Highlight paper |
| 13 Apr 2026
| 13 Apr 2026
Results of the second Ice Shelf–Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (ISOMIP+)
Research School of Earth Sciences and Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Xylar S. Asay-Davis
Fluid Dynamics and Solid Mechanics, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, NM, USA
Alistair Adcroft
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Christopher Y. S. Bull
ACCESS-NRI, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Jan De Rydt
Department of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Northumbria University, Newcastle, UK
Michael S. Dinniman
Center for Coastal Physical Oceanography, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Benjamin K. Galton-Fenzi
Australian Antarctic Division, Kingston, Tasmania, Australia
Australian Antarctic Program Partnership and Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
Daniel Goldberg
School of Geosciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
David E. Gwyther
School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia
Robert Hallberg
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, USA
Matthew Harrison
NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, Princeton, NJ, USA
Tore Hattermann
Norwegian Polar Institute, Fram Centre, Tromsø, Norway
David M. Holland
Environmental Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, New York University, NY, USA
Denise Holland
Environmental Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, New York University, NY, USA
Paul R. Holland
British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK
James R. Jordan
Department of Geography, Swansea University, Swansea, UK
Nicolas C. Jourdain
Institut des Geosciences de l’Environnement, Univ. Grenoble Alpes/CNRS/IRD/G-INP/INRAE, Grenoble, France
Kazuya Kusahara
Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC), Yokohama, Japan
Gustavo Marques
Climate and Global Dynamics Laboratory, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA
Pierre Mathiot
Institut des Geosciences de l’Environnement, Univ. Grenoble Alpes/CNRS/IRD/G-INP/INRAE, Grenoble, France
Dimitris Menemenlis
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, San José State University, Moss Landing, California, USA
Adele K. Morrison
Research School of Earth Sciences and Australian Centre for Excellence in Antarctic Science, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Yoshihiro Nakayama
Thayer School of Engineering, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA
Institute of Low Temperature Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
Olga Sergienko
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Robin S. Smith
National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, Reading, UK
Alon Stern
Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences Program, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Ralph Timmermann
Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Bremerhaven, Germany
Akvaplan-niva AS, 9296, Tromsø, Norway
Viewed
Total article views: 1,686 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 24 Jun 2025)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,175 | 462 | 49 | 1,686 | 103 | 43 | 51 |
- HTML: 1,175
- PDF: 462
- XML: 49
- Total: 1,686
- Supplement: 103
- BibTeX: 43
- EndNote: 51
Total article views: 1,686 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Cumulative views and downloads
(calculated since 24 Jun 2025)
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,175 | 462 | 49 | 1,686 | 103 | 43 | 51 |
- HTML: 1,175
- PDF: 462
- XML: 49
- Total: 1,686
- Supplement: 103
- BibTeX: 43
- EndNote: 51
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Total article views: 1,686 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 1,662 with geography defined
and 24 with unknown origin.
Total article views: 1,686 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)
Thereof 1,662 with geography defined
and 24 with unknown origin.
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
1
Latest update: 13 Apr 2026
Editorial statement
The interface between ice shelves and the ocean is extremely complicated to model, as such benchmark tests that systematically compare results from a large number of ice-shelf-ocean models are crucial. This manuscript presents results from the ISOMIP+ project, documenting the first formal, systematic intercomparison of ice-shelf-ocean models. The manuscript is a valuable contribution to the literature and a benchmark for future inter-comparison projects. The ISOMIP+ project is an important showcase of collaborative science and has fostered model development leading to more realistic ice sheet-ocean models essential for predicting future climate and sea level.
The interface between ice shelves and the ocean is extremely complicated to model, as such...
Short summary
The second Ice Shelf-Ocean Model Intercomparison Project, ISOMIP+, compares 12 ice shelf-ocean models with a common, idealised, static configuration, aiming to assess inter-model variability. Models show similar basal melt rate patterns, ocean profiles and circulation but differ in ice-ocean boundary layer properties. Ice-ocean boundary layer representation is a key area for future work, as are realistic-domain ice sheet-ocean model intercomparisons.
The second Ice Shelf-Ocean Model Intercomparison Project, ISOMIP+, compares 12 ice shelf-ocean...
