Current Climate Change Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 174–184 | Cite as

Progress in Numerical Modeling of Antarctic Ice-Sheet Dynamics

  • Frank Pattyn
  • Lionel Favier
  • Sainan Sun
  • Gaël Durand
Glaciology and Climate Change (T Payne, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. This article is part of the Topical Collection on Glaciology and Climate Change

Abstract

Numerical modeling of the Antarctic ice sheet has gone through a paradigm shift over the last decade. While initially models focussed on long-time diffusive response to surface mass balance changes, processes occurring at the marine boundary of the ice sheet are progressively incorporated in newly developed state-of-the-art ice-sheet models. These models now exhibit fast, short-term volume changes, in line with current observations of mass loss. Coupling with ocean models is currently on its way and applied to key areas of the Antarctic ice sheet. New model intercomparisons have been launched, focusing on ice/ocean interaction (MISMIP+, MISOMIP) or ice-sheet model initialization and multi-ensemble projections (ISMIP6). Nevertheless, the inclusion of new processes pertaining to ice-shelf calving, evolution of basal friction, and other processes, also increase uncertainties in the contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to future sea-level rise.

Keywords

Ice-sheet modeling Antarctica Marine ice Sheet instability 

Introduction

Unlike atmospheric modeling, Antarctic continental-scale ice-sheet modeling only fully emerged at the beginning of the 1990s (e.g., [68, 70]). Initially, such models were employed at rather coarse resolution (∼50 km) to investigate ice-sheet changes during glacial-interglacial cycles [69, 105] or on longer time scales [31]. At that time, ice sheets were believed to be a slow component of the climate system with a highly diffusive response to surface mass balance change. However, while the possibility of rapid continental change was advocated several decades before [81, 126], ice-sheet models were unable to deal with rapid changes, which was clearly identified as a limitation for Antarctic ice-sheet modeling [123].

Due to the increase of satellite data observations witnessing rapid mass loss, ice-sheet modeling needed a paradigm shift, which came through an improved insight into grounding-line (limit between the grounded ice sheet and the floating ice shelf) physics and the way to represent this in ice-sheet models [67, 95, 111, 123]. Since then, Antarctic ice-sheet modeling has taken a great leap forward based on an improved understanding of key processes and the development of assimilation methods leading to the ability to reproduce observed ice-sheet changes and by making refined future projections.

This paper reports on the recent progress made since the Fifth IPCC Assessment Report (AR5, [72]), focusing on advances in understanding key glacial processes, the way these processes are included in ice-sheet models and how this has affected century-scale projections of future Antarctic ice-mass change.

Advances in Process Understanding and Modeling

Damage and Calving

Iceberg calving (IC) occurs when ice chunks break off from the edge of a glacier, mostly from floating ice shelves in Antarctica, where IC is directly responsible for almost half of the ice mass loss [33, 103]. IC also modulates buttressing induced by ice shelves [36, 49] and therefore indirectly contributes to upstream grounded ice speed up and subsequent sea level rise (SLR) contribution [17]. The large amount of ice lost through IC is common for Antarctica [46], but its representation and quantification in models is hampered by the difficult access to field sites, a high variability in time and space, and its inherent discontinuous nature, as opposed to the continuum approach mostly used in models. Until recently, calving rates were essentially based on empirical relationships (an excellent review is given in [86]), making them unable to be extended to other regions.

Physically-based discrete approaches were recently developed, in which the ice body is made of discrete particles linked to each other by bonds that can break off when undergoing a too high stress. While initially developed along flow lines [8, 11], Åström et al. [9] coupled IC with a continuum three-dimensional ice-flow model. However, the high computational cost of the discrete approach limits its use to ideal cases or small areas.

Physically based continuum approaches are mostly based on the work of Benn et al. [14], which states that ice calves when a crevasse extents vertically from the surface down to below sea level. A crevasse penetration depth is calculated based on the pioneering work of Nye [90], and depends on the equilibrium between an opening term being longitudinal stretching, and a closing term being cryostatic pressure. Studies applying this criterion (and derivations of it) to Greenland [26, 86, 87] and Antarctica [32, 100, 101] could qualitatively reproduce coherent variations of the calving front. However, the approach is based on an instantaneous stress balance field, thus not considering accumulated weaknesses in the ice advected with the ice flow, nor the stress concentration at their tip on their vertical propagation.

This issue was addressed by recent studies that applied continuum damage mechanics (CDM) for simulating crevasses. The CDM theory represents initial ice micro-defects and their vertical development as crevasses, which in turn weakens the ice through damage and decreases ice viscosity. This approach was used to describe the crevasse field of non changing Antarctic glaciers [2, 21, 22, 23, 35, 102]. Applied to evolving glaciers, this approach was improved by Krug et al. [75], who added the concept of Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics in which the crevasse propagation depends on the fracture toughness at the crevasse tip, and is advected with the ice flow. This work, along a 1D-flowline of Helheim glacier in Greenland, was extended in two horizontal dimensions by Sun et al. [120] for the damage part (initiation and advection). Using the concept of plastic necking, Bassis and Ma [10] adopted a complementary approach suggesting that initial narrow cracks at the bottom of cold ice shelves can be enlarged under extensional stress. The morphology of the resulting wide crevasse can then be modulated by either ice accretion or sub-shelf melting. This model was applied to Antarctic ice shelves (Ross, Filchner-Ronne, Amery and Larsen C).

More recently, the concept of Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI; Fig. 1b) has emerged [32, 100], i.e., that ice cliffs become unstable and fall down if higher than ∼90 m above sea level, leading to the collapse of ice sheets during past warms periods [32]. MICI is a process that facilitates and enhances Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI; see “Ice-Sheet Model Intercomparisons” and Fig. 1b for more details) through a decrease in ice-shelf buttressing. MICI relies on the assumption of perfect plastic rheology to represent failure. Cliff instability requires an a priori collapse of ice shelves, and is favored by hydro-fracturing through the increase of water pressure in surface crevasses, which increases the opening term [12, 87, 100]. Contrary to MISI, MICI can also occur on prograde bed slopes.
Fig. 1

a Antarctic bed topography (Bedmap2; [47]). b Depiction of MISI (top) and MICI (bottom). Ice discharge generally increases with increasing ice thickness at the grounding line. For a bed sloping down toward the interior this may lead to unstable grounding-line retreat (MISI), as increased flux (for example, due to reduced buttressing) leads to thinning and eventually flotation, which moves the grounding line into deeper water where the ice is thicker. Thicker ice results in increased ice flux, which further thins (and eventually floats) the ice, which results in further retreat into deeper water (and thicker ice), and so on. MICI is the result of collapse of exposed ice cliffs (after the ice shelf collapses due to hydro-fracturing) under their own weight. MISI applies for a retrograde slope bed, while MICI can also apply for prograde slopes. Both MISI and MICI are thus superimposed for retrograde slopes. The square indicates a subset shown in (c). The red color beneath the ice shelf suggests that the deeper the ice the higher it is subjected to melt and grounding-line retreat (after [32]). c Schematic showing the difference in basal shear stress obtained with Weertman and Coulomb friction laws at the grounding line, respectively (after [122]). The two friction laws result in a similar shear stress for a height-above-flotation (HAF) above 17 m [122]

Pinning Points

The Antarctic ice sheet is surrounded by topographic highs emerging from the Antarctic continental shelf [79]. They pin the ice shelf from below, hence contributing to ice-shelf buttressing. These pinning points can eventually lose contact with the ice-shelf bottom as a result of current ice-shelf thinning [92], which makes them crucial to be considered in ice-sheet models in order to provide correct predictions of Antarctic contribution to SLR.

About half of those pinning points (ice rumples, rises, or promontories) are smaller than 100 km 2 [79], making them non-resolvable in continental-scale ice-sheet models, which have to parametrize them by a local increase in ice-shelf basal friction [99] within floating ice-shelf grid cells. However, high-resolution ice-sheet models need to be employed to physically represent pinning points accurately. In essence, pinning points have two effects: if the ice shelf becomes pinned (due to ice-shelf thickening for instance), then the grounding line has a tendency to advance and stabilize the system [41, 55]. However, the presence of a pinning point does not necessarily protects ice shelves from unstable retreat, but may lead to a slow down of grounding-line retreat rates [40]. The latter study also found that ice rises are formed during a deglaciation phase, i.e., when the grounding line retreats and the ice shelf locally remains stuck on a bedrock high. Pinning points should also be considered in ice-sheet model initialization with inverse methods [15, 43]; their absence otherwise alters the initial buttressing state since pinning points locally slow down ice velocity [48].

Solid-Earth Effects

Relative sea level change also influences the stability of marine ice sheets [62], as ice-sheet mass loss causes a falling of sea level at the grounding line due to bedrock rebound and sea-surface water migrating away [25]. Such a sea-level fall reduces the ice flux at the grounding line by decreasing its ice thickness, hence stabilizing the ice sheet. Gravitationally self-consistent sea-level models incorporating Maxwell viscoelastic deformation of the solid Earth have recently been coupled to ice-sheet models to investigate their effect on millennial time scales [19, 62] as its importance for the stability of the West-Antarctic ice sheet on these time scales has been demonstrated [74]. However, given the thin elastic lithosphere and low-viscosity upper mantle in West Antarctica, this effect may even be important on centennial time scales [63].

Tidal Effects

Tides significantly affect the dynamics of Antarctic ice streams, increasing or decreasing their speed when they are high or low, respectively, which is induced by a change in stresses at the grounding line. Their effect on ice flow can extend hundreds of kilometers upstream from the grounding line [3]. Few studies have investigated the tidal effect on ice-sheet dynamics so far ([107, 108] for ideal cases and [109] for an Antarctic ice shelf). All of them applied a nonlinear viscoelastic law for ice rheology, as opposed to the traditional viscoplastic Glen’s flow law, which is less relevant than the former when the change in stress—due to tidal movement—occurs over a very short (hourly) time scale.

Sub-shelf Melting

Sub-shelf melting is responsible for more than half of the ice mass loss at the margins of the Antarctic ice sheet [33, 103]. As with IC, sub-shelf melting decreases the buttressing capacity of ice shelves via loss of pinning points. In particular, this has been presumably been the trigger of the observed acceleration of large Antarctic outlet glaciers in the Amundsen Sea sector during the last decade [42, 73].

Sub-shelf melting can either be parametrized or computed through the coupling with an ocean model. Parametrizations relate sub-shelf melting to ocean temperature and ice-shelf depth [13], either in a linear or a quadratic fashion (e.g., [32, 128]), which leads to higher melting close to the grounding line. Other parametrizations relate sub-shelf melting to ice-shelf depth and distance to the grounding line [28, 43, 64, 85], to the ice-shelf and cavity depths [119], or more recently by using melt rates from a plume model that are extended spatially using physically motivated scalings depending upon local slope and ice draft [76].

More accurate representations of sub-shelf melting can be achieved by the coupling to an ocean model, which should be an improvement compared to simple parametrizations, since it accounts for the transfer of heat, freshwater and momentum between the two bodies. The principle of coupling is simple: sub-shelf melting is computed by the ocean model, which is used by the ice-sheet model to modify the cavity beneath the ice shelf; the new cavity, in turn, constrains the ocean model, and so on. Although this seems straightforward, the problem remains highly complex because of high computational costs and different grid resolutions that hamper exchanges between the two models. So far, this coupling has been done between a plume ocean model and a 1D flow line [124] or a 2D plan-view ice shelf [113, 125], hence without considering the grounded ice sheet (the grounding line is thus fixed). Gladstone et al. [52] coupled a 1D time-dependent flow-line model to a box model for ice-shelf cavity circulation and made centennial predictions for Pine Island Glacier. 2D plan-view coupling with ice-sheet models has been realized for ideal cases [30, 57], and more recently for Pine Island Glacier [116]. The time steps employed by both models differ by few orders of magnitude, making the coupling asynchronous.

Despite the lack of direct observations of sub-shelf melting limiting the development of parametrizations as well as ocean model validation, highly detailed mapping of sub-shelf melt has become gradually available [16, 39, 82, 103]. Nevertheless, ice/ocean interaction seems to drive the current loss of Antarctic ice, which motivates future developments into coupled models in line with increased computing power [34].

Numerical Improvements

Ice-Sheet Model Intercomparisons

The concept of MISI (Fig. 1b), first proposed 40 years ago [121, 126], provided a basis to hypothesize a possible collapse of West Antarctica as a consequence of anthropogenic global warming [81]. However, the MISI theory was challenged by Hindmarsh [66], considering that ice shelves were too weak (and therefore mechanically uncoupled from the ice sheet) to affect the force balance of the grounded ice sheet. This led to the hypothesis of neutral equilibria that were neither stable or unstable [66]. The resulting non-uniqueness of numerically-derived ice-sheet profiles, and the failure to recognize the importance of model resolution, confounded attempts to reproduce consistent dynamical behavior among different models [123]. MISI theory was also disputed by observations of an apparently balanced ice sheet, but that was before several ice shelves collapsed in the Antarctic Peninsula, leading to increased glacier discharge [110], and glaciers started to retreat in the Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE) [104, 117, 127]. Schoof [111] gave mathematical formulation of the MISI theory put forward by Weertman [126], dispelling the idea that ice sheets and ice shelves are mechanically uncoupled. This theory showed that the ice-sheet margin should be treated as a moving boundary problem that requires two constraints, i.e., a hydrostatic floatation constraint and a flux constraint that satisfies the momentum balance for ice-sheet and ice-shelf flow (mechanical coupling).

This had a profound impact on ice-sheet model development, pushing models to conform to known (analytical) solutions [38], which led to international model intercomparisons, such as MISMIP [96] and MISMIP3d [97]. These numerical experiments demonstrated that in order to resolve grounding-line migration in marine ice-sheet models, a sufficient high spatial resolution needs to be applied, since membrane stresses need to be resolved across the grounding line to guarantee mechanical coupling. The latter condition needs at least a model based on the so-called Shallow-Shelf approximation (SSA) that basically only includes membrane stresses, thereby neglecting vertical shearing. However, MISMIP3d demonstrated that such models wrongly estimate ice-sheet mass changes compared to models that include vertical shearing and membrane stresses (so-called higher-order and full-Stokes models). Several approximations (vertically integrated) have recently been developed that include those components in one way or the other to optimize computational efficiency [24, 27, 54, 99, 112].

Alternatively, some models [99] have implemented the boundary-layer theory as a parametrization in a large-scale model, with the main advantage that high spatial resolutions can be avoided. However, subsequent intercomparisons, such as MISMIP3d, showed that while the general behavior complies with theory, transient behavior may deviate [94].

A recent intercomparison [7] tackles challenging geometries of ice shelves and grounding lines (MISMIP+), where grounding lines may reach stable positions on retrograde slopes [65] due to ice-shelf buttressing. Asay-Davis et al. [7] take it even further and propose an experiment of a coupled ice sheet-ocean system, where the ocean model provides sub-shelf melt distribution, making the ice shelf thin and the grounding line retreat, and the new cavity shape is then returned to the ocean model. This challenging setup is the first intercomparison of real ice-sheet/ocean coupling and will become a benchmark for future modeling attempts.

Finally, understanding the past to give insights into the future has motivated the PLISMIP-ANT intercomparison project [20], focussing on the Antarctic ice-sheet behavior during the late-Pliocene warm period.

Grounding Lines

Based on the MISMIP series, several further improvements in both numerical treatment and understanding of grounding-line migration have emerged. Most studies, and the MISMIP series is not an exception, use the Weertman friction law (WFL) to represent basal velocity as a power-law function of basal shear stress [91]. Both terms are linked by a basal friction coefficient, which is low for high sliding areas such as ice streams and high across the interior ice sheet. Due to the lack of measurements, this coefficient is currently determined by the use of inverse methods (see “Model Initialization”).

The dependence on spatial resolution, as mentioned in “Ice-Sheet Model Intercomparisons” decreases with reduced change in basal shear stress across the grounding line [53]. The inherent abrupt change in basal friction occurring across the grounding line with the WFL – zero friction below the ice shelf – thus requires high spatial resolution (e.g., < 1 km for Pine Island Glacier; [52]) for an accurate representation of grounding-line migration (Fig. 1c). Therefore, a series of ice-sheet models have implemented a spatial grid refinement, mainly for the purpose of accurate data assimilation [28, 50, 83], but also for further transient simulations where the adaptive mesh approach enables the finest grid to follow the grounding-line migration [27, 28]. However, MISMIP led to the development of subgrid interpolation schemes enabling grounding-line migration without necessarily decreasing the grid size drastically at the grounding line [29, 45, 114].

To circumvent the somewhat non-physical discontinuous jump in friction between grounded and floating ice obtained through the WFL, Tsai et al. [122] derived a grounding line boundary layer solution for a Coulomb friction law (CFL), in line with the solution of Schoof [111] for WFL. According to CFL, basal shear stress is proportional to the effective pressure (difference between ice overburden and water pressure) and a friction coefficient, the latter related to the rheological properties of the till. Near the grounding line, till is assumed cohesionless and hydrostatically connected to the ocean. The CFL therefore ensures a smooth transition of basal shear stress across the grounding line, reducing it to zero because of the vanishing effective pressure (Fig. 1c). This physically represents the hydrological connection between the subglacial system and the ocean in the transition zone [122]. The CFL condition makes marine ice sheets also more sensitive to climate perturbations because of the zero effective pressure condition at the grounding line (contrary to the WFL condition) and a greater dependence on ice thickness [77, 93, 122].

Model Initialization

A key aspect of projecting future Antarctic mass loss with dynamical ice-sheet models is related to the initial state of the model. Since ice-sheet models were initially applied for palaeo-climatic studies on long time scales (see “Introduction”), initialization was generally obtained from a long spinup time leading to a steady-state ice sheet (both in terms of geometry and thermodynamics). However, for predictions on shorter time scales (decades to centuries), a stable spinup generally leads to an ice-sheet geometry far different from the one currently observed [18], which is one of the reasons why such ice-sheet models may respond differently than observations suggest. Moreover, using a steady-state for initializing the ice sheet prevents models from properly accounting for the dynamical mass losses observed over the last decade, as the present-day ice sheet is not in steady state [72].

Diagnosing whether grounding lines are stable or unstable demands more than characterizing bedrock slopes (inland sloping beds may potentially lead to MISI). Ice flux across the grounding line also depends on ice rheology, basal sliding conditions and ice-shelf buttressing (e.g., [65]). Such diagnosis requires model initialization and parameter estimation. New developments in data assimilation methods led to improved initializations in which the initial ice-sheet geometry and velocity field are kept as close as possible to observations by optimizing other unknown fields, such as basal friction coefficient (Advances in Process Understanding and Modeling) and ice stiffness (accounting for crevasse weakening and ice anisotropy; [4, 5, 28, 78, 83, 84]). Motivated by the increasing ice-sheet imbalance of the ASE glaciers over the last 20 years [118], and supported by the recent boom in satellite data availability, data-assimilation methods are progressively used to evaluate unknown fields using time-evolving states accounting for the transient nature of observations and the model dynamics [51, 56, 58, 59].

The increase in computational efficiency enabling high spatial resolution modelling, high-resolution datasets of bedrock topography and surface velocity, longer time series on ice-sheet changes, and the improved initialization of ice-sheet models are now allowing ice-sheet modelling to move away from the slow-diffusive response over millennium time scales toward robust predictions on decadal time scales, hindcasting and potentially reanalysis. For the first time, Antarctic ice-sheet models have become part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP6) under ISMIP6, where the focus on ice-sheet model initialization is currently underway [89].

Model Predictions

A few years ago, the first international initiative to produce multi-model average projections of the contribution of Greenland and Antarctica to SLR, SeaRISE, was launched [18, 88]. Based on the premise that the combined results are more robust than the evaluation of a single model, it estimated that the contribution of the Antarctic ice sheet to future SLR during the next century will likely be within -20 to + 185 mm. However, Antarctic SeaRISE projections should be regarded with caution, as a lack of physics in a number of participating models most likely biased the projections [37]. Furthermore, irreversible ice loss induced by MISI could not be ruled out, and if initiated, would substantially increase Antarctic contribution to SLR. Limited process understanding and lack of evidence at the time of publication of IPCC AR5, reduced the confidence in the possibility of MISI occurrence, so that SLR was estimated to be limited to less than one meter during the twenty-first century [72].

Since 2013, ice-sheet modelling studies have suggested that Pine Island Glacier [42] and Thwaites Glacier [73], which are currently the Antarctic glaciers experiencing the largest mass loss [118], may already be engaged in a MISI. A sustained retreat in the ASE is to be expected even without additional forcing from climate change [6, 44, 115]. Furthermore, Wilkes and Aurora basins in East Antarctica exhibit a similar topographic configuration with a retrograde bed slope upstream the current position of the grounding line, but it would require substantial atmospheric forcing (temperature anomaly > 5 °C) to trigger MISI in the near future [1, 61, 80].

Using experts judgement to estimate the time of MISI initiation for all the Antarctic sectors and a Bayesian statistical framework to calibrate simulations to current observation of ASE mass loss, Ritz et al. [106] show that, under the climate scenario A1B, Antarctica will contribute up to 30 cm sea-level equivalent by 2100 (95% quantile). However, motivated by the observed Larsen B collapse and rapid front retreat of the Jakobshavn Isbrae in Greenland, [32] suggest that hydro-fracturing could lead to rapid collapse of ice shelves and potentially produce high ice cliffs with vertical exposure above 90 m rendering the cliffs mechanically unsustainable, resulting in Marine Ice Cliff Collapse (MICI, Fig. 1). If initiated, MICI could enhance a fast recession of outlet glaciers producing up to 1.05 m sea-level equivalent in 2100 under a RCP8.5 scenario. On millennium time scales, a threshold seems to appear between RCP2.6 and RCP4.5, where Antarctica changes dramatically from a near contemporary configuration to a massive continental change associated with extensive retreat across marine basins, hence producing up to 20 m sea-level rise after 5000 years [32, 60, 129]. Table 1 gives a non-exhaustive list of sea-level contributions according to different climate scenarios. Major limitations remain to be circumvented to improve robustness in the projections of the Antarctic mass budget with respect to (i) processes (occurrence of MICI, basal friction), (ii) knowledge of basal topography and sub-shelf bathymetry, and (iii) forcing from ocean/atmosphere and melt rate/surface condition evolutions.
Table 1

Model estimates of global Antarctic ice-sheet contribution to sea level rise (m) according to different climate scenarios: (1) [106]; (2) [60]; (3) [32]. The term ‘Pliocene’ refers to the calibration target for sea level contribution during the Pliocene

Year

A1B

RCP2.6

RCP4.5

RCP8.5

Probability

Ref.

2100

0.3

   

95% quantile

(1)

  

0.01–0.10

0.01–0.19

0.10–0.39

min-max

(2)

  

0.11 ± 0.11

0.49 ± 0.20

1.05 ± 0.30

Pliocene: 10-20 m

(3)

  

0.02 ± 0.13

0.26 ± 0.28

0.64 ± 0.49

Pliocene: 5-15 m

(3)

2200

0.72

   

95% quantile

(1)

2500

 

0.25 ± 0.23

5.69 ± 1.00

15.65 ± 2.00

Pliocene: 10-20 m

(3)

  

0.19 ± 0.42

3.97 ± 1.97

13.11 ± 3.04

Pliocene: 5-15 m

(3)

5000

 

0.38–0.58

2.77–4.30

5.20–9.31

min-max

(2)

Conclusions and Outlook

Over the last decade, Antarctic ice-sheet models have been greatly improved, especially regarding grounding-line migration and model initialization, and through a better understanding of processes such as iceberg calving, sub-shelf melting, ocean coupling and solid-Earth effects. From a theoretical viewpoint, we now have the ability to verify marine ice-sheet models, albeit that certain effects, such as buttressing, cannot be quantified/verified accurately. A danger with intercomparisons such as MISMIP, however, is that models, solely by their participation, automatically get approved while still oversimplifying the underlying mechanisms.

The availability of continent-covering satellite datasets over longer time spans has opened up the opportunity for model validation and initialization at unprecedented scale. Once these time series become sufficiently long enough, hindcasting with ice-sheet models may be envisaged.

Crucial processes of ice-shelf breakup (hydro-fracturing) and calving front/cliff stability still need to be further explored. While such mechanisms aid at explaining past changes in the Antarctic ice sheet, they do show a higher sensitivity to forcing, and hence lead to a significant larger mass loss [32, 100].

While the early models developed during the 1990s where thoroughly tested via the EISMINT intercomparisons for thermomechanical ice-sheet models [71, 98], several new-generation models lack the thermodynamic part as they strongly focus on abrupt changes at the marine boundary. However, since recent studies (e.g., [32]) point to significant high mass loss even on centennial time scales, thermomechanical aspects should not be neglected.

Finally, we deliberately did not treat advances in basal hydrology and basal characteristics (apart from initialization of basal friction fields) of the Antarctic ice sheet, simply because very few advances have been made. This may be deplorable, because on longer time scales or due to rapid ice changes, basal conditions may well change significantly and our knowledge on basal conditions remains far from complete.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Aitken ARA, Roberts JL, van Ommen TD, Young DA, Golledge NR, Greenbaum JS, Blankenship DD, Siegert MJ. Repeated large- scale retreat and advance of Totten Glacier indicated by inland bed erosion. Nature. 2016;533(7603):385–9. doi:10.1038/nature17447.
  2. 2.
    Albrecht T, Levermann A. Spontaneous ice-front retreat caused by disintegration of adjacent ice shelf in Antarctica. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2014;393:26–30. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.02.034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Anandakrishnan S, Alley RB. Tidal forcing of basal seismicity of ice stream c, west antarctica, observed far inland. J Geophys Res Solid Earth. 1997;102(B7):15183–96. doi:10.1029/97JB01073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Arthern RJ, Gudmundsson GH. Initialization of ice-sheet forecasts viewed as an inverse Robin problem. J Glaciol. 2010;56 (197):527–33. doi:10.3189/002214310792447699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Arthern RJ, Hindmarsh RCa. Determining the contribution of Antarctica to sea-level rise using data assimilation methods. Philos Transact A Math Phys Eng Sci. 2006;364(1844):1841–65. doi:10.1098/rsta.2006.1801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Arthern RJ, Williams CR. The sensitivity of West Antarctica to the submarine melting feedback. Geophys Res Lett. 2017;1–8. doi:10.1002/2017GL072514.
  7. 7.
    Asay-Davis XS, Cornford SL, Durand G, Galton-Fenzi BK, Gladstone RM, Hilmar Gudmundsson G, Hattermann T, Holland DM, Holland D, Holland PR, Martin DF, Mathiot P, Pattyn F, Seroussi H. Experimental design for three interrelated marine ice sheet and ocean model intercomparison projects: MISMIP v. 3 (MISMIP +), ISOMIP v. 2 (ISOMIP +) and MISOMIP v. 1 (MISOMIP1). Geosci Model Dev. 2016;9(7):2471–97. doi:10.5194/gmd-9-2471-2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Åström JA, Riikilä TI, Tallinen T, Zwinger T, Benn D, Moore JC, Timonen J. A particle based simulation model for glacier dynamics. Cryosphere. 2013;7(5):1591–602. doi:10.5194/tc-7-1591-2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Åström JA, Vallot D, Schäfer M, Welty EZ, Neel SO, Bartholomaus TC, Liu Y, Riikilä T, Zwinger T, Timonen J, Moore JC. Termini of calving glaciers as self-organized critical systems. Nat Geosci. 2014;7:874–8. doi:10.1038/NGEO2290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bassis J, Ma Y. Evolution of basal crevasses links ice shelf stability to ocean forcing. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2015;409:203–11. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.11.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bassis JN, Jacobs S. Diverse calving patterns linked to glacier geometry. Nat Geosci. 2013;6(10):833–6. doi:10.1038/ngeo1887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bassis JN, Walker CC. Upper and lower limits on the stability of calving glaciers from the yield strength envelope of ice. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Sci. 2012;468(2140):913–31. doi:10.1098/rspa.2011.0422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beckmann A, Goosse H. A parameterization of ice shelf-ocean interaction for climate models. Ocean Model. 2002;5(2):157–70. doi:10.1016/S1463-5003(02)00019-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Benn DI, Warren CR, Mottram RH. Calving processes and the dynamics of calving glaciers. Earth-Sci Rev. 2007;82(3-4):143–79. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2007.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berger S, Favier L, Drews R, Derwael JJ, Pattyn F. The control of an uncharted pinning point on the flow of an antarctic ice shelf. J Glaciol. 2016;62(231):37–45. doi:10.1017/jog.2016.7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Berger S, Drews R, Helm V, Sun S, Pattyn F. Detecting high spatial variability of ice-shelf basal mass balance (roi baudouin ice shelf, antarctica). Cryosphere Discuss. 2017;2017:1–22. doi:10.5194/tc-2017-41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berthier E, Scambos TA, Shuman CA. Mass loss of Larsen B tributary glaciers (Antarctic Peninsula) unabated since 2002. Geophys Res Lett. 2012;39(13):1–6. doi:10.1029/2012GL051755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bindschadler RA, Nowicki S, Abe-Ouchi A, Aschwanden A, Choi H, Fastook J, Granzow G, Greve R, Gutowski G, Herzfeld U, Jackson C, Johnson J, Khroulev C, Levermann A, Lipscomb WH, Martin MA, Morlighem M, Parizek BR, Pollard D, Price SF, Ren D, Saito F, Sato T, Seddik H, Seroussi H, Takahashi K, Walker R, Wang WL. Ice-sheet model sensitivities to environmental forcing and their use in projecting future sea level (the SeaRISE project). J Glaciol. 2013;59(214):195–224. doi:10.3189/2013JoG12J125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Boer B, Stocchi P, van de Wal RSW. A fully coupled 3-d ice-sheet–sea-level model: algorithm and applications. Geosci Model Dev. 2014;7(5):2141–56. doi:10.5194/gmd-7-2141-2014.
  20. 20.
    de Boer B, Dolan AM, Bernales J, Gasson E, Goelzer H, Golledge NR, Sutter J, Huybrechts P, Lohmann G, Rogozhina I, Abe-Ouchi A, Saito F. Simulating the antarctic ice sheet in the late-pliocene warm period: Plismip-ant, an ice-sheet model intercomparison project. Cryosphere. 2015;9(3):881–903. doi:10.5194/tc-9-881-2015.
  21. 21.
    Borstad C, Khazendar A, Scheuchl B, Morlighem M, Larour E, Rignot E. A constitutive framework for predicting weakening and reduced buttressing of ice shelves based on observations of the progressive deterioration of the remnant Larsen B Ice Shelf. Geophys Res Lett. 2016;43(5):2027–35. doi:10.1002/2015GL067365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Borstad CP, Khazendar A, Larour E, Morlighem M, Rignot E, Schodlok MP, Seroussi H. A damage mechanics assessment of the Larsen B ice shelf prior to collapse: Toward a physically-based calving law. Geophys Res Lett. 2012;39(17):L18,502. doi:10.1029/2012GL053317.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Borstad CP, Rignot E, Mouginot J, Schodlok MP. Creep deformation and buttressing capacity of damaged ice shelves: theory and application to Larsen C ice shelf. Cryosphere. 2013;7(6):1931–47. doi:10.5194/tc-7-1931-2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Bueler E, Brown J. Shallow shelf approximation as a “sliding law” in a thermomechanically coupled ice sheet model. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. 2009;114(F3). doi:10.1029/2008JF001179, f03008.
  25. 25.
    Clark J, Lingle CS. Future sea-level changes due to west antarctic ice sheet fluctuations. Nature. 1977;269:206–9. doi:10.1038/269206a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Cook S, Rutt IC, Murray T, Luckman A, Zwinger T, Selmes N, Goldsack A, James TD. Modelling environmental influences on calving at Helheim Glacier in eastern Greenland. Cryosphere. 2014;8(3):827–41. doi:10.5194/tc-8-827-2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cornford SL, MarTsaitin DF, Graves DT, Ranken DF, Le AM, Gladstone RM, Payne AJ, Ng EG, Lipscomb WH, Le Brocq AM, Gladstone R M, Payne AJ, Ng EG, Lipscomb WH. Adaptive mesh, finite volume modeling of marine ice sheets. J Comput Phys. 2013;232(1):529–49. doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2012.08.037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cornford SL, Martin DF, Payne AJ, Ng EG, Le Brocq AM, Gladstone RM, Edwards TL, Shannon SR, Agosta C, Van Den Broeke MR, Hellmer HH, Krinner G, Ligtenberg SRM, Timmermann R, Vaughan DG. Century-scale simulations of the response of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to a warming climate. Cryosphere. 2015;9(4):1579–600. doi:10.5194/tc-9-1579-2015.
  29. 29.
    Cornford SL, Martin DF, Lee V, Payne AJ, Ng EG. Adaptive mesh refinement versus subgrid friction interpolation in simulations of Antarctic ice dynamics. Ann Glaciol. 2016;57(73):1–9. doi:10.1017/aog.2016.13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    De Rydt J, Gudmundsson GH, De Rydt J, Gudmundsson GH. Coupled ice shelf-ocean modeling and complex grounding line retreat from a seabed ridge. J Geophys Res F: Earth Surf. 2016;121(5):865–80. doi:10.1002/2015JF003791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    DeConto RM, Pollard D. Rapid Cenozoic glaciation of Antarctica induced by declining atmospheric CO2. Nature. 2003;421:245–9. doi:10.1038/nature01290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deconto RM, Pollard D. Contribution of Antarctica to past and future sea-level rise. Nature. 2016;531(7596):591–7. doi:10.1038/nature17145.
  33. 33.
    Depoorter MA, Bamber JL, Griggs JA, Lenaerts JTM, Ligtenberg SRM, van den Broeke MR, Moholdt G. Calving fluxes and basal melt rates of Antarctic ice shelves. Nature. 2013;502 (7469):89–92. doi:10.1038/nature12567, NIHMS150003.
  34. 34.
    Dinniman M, Asay-Davis X, Galton-Fenzi B, Holland P, Timmermann R. Modeling Ice Shelf/Ocean interaction in Antarctica: a review. Oceanography. 2016;29.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Duddu R, Waisman H. A nonlocal continuum damage mechanics approach to simulation of creep fracture in ice sheets. Comput. Mech. 2013;51(6):961–74. doi:10.1007/s00466-012-0778-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Dupont TK, Alley RB. 2005. Assessment of the importance of ice-shelf buttressing to ice-sheet flow. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2004GL022024.
  37. 37.
    Durand G, Pattyn F. Reducing uncertainties in projections of Antarctic ice mass loss. Cryosphere. 2015;9(6):2043–55. doi:10.5194/tc-9-2043-2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Durand G, Gagliardini O, De Fleurian B, Zwinger T, Le Meur E. Marine ice sheet dynamics: Hysteresis and neutral equilibrium. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth. 2009;114(3):F03,009. doi:10.1029/2008JF001170.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dutrieux P, Vaughan DG, Corr H F J, Jenkins A, Holland PR, Joughin I, Fleming AH. Pine island glacier ice shelf melt distributed at kilometre scales. Cryosphere. 2013;7(5):1543–55. doi:10.5194/tc-7-1543-2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Favier L, Pattyn F. Antarctic ice rise formation, evolution, and stability. Geophys Res Lett. 2015;42(11):2015GL064,195. doi:10.1002/2015GL064195.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Favier L, Gagliardini O, Durand G, Zwinger T. A three-dimensional full stokes model of the grounding line dynamics: effect of a pinning point beneath the ice shelf. Cryosphere. 2012;6(1):101–12. doi:10.5194/tc-6-101-2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Favier L, Durand G, Cornford SL, Gudmundsson GH, Gagliardini O, Gillet-Chaulet F, Zwinger T, Payne AJ, Le Brocq aM. Retreat of Pine Island Glacier controlled by marine ice-sheet instability. Nat Clim Chang. 2014;5(2):117–21. doi:10.1038/nclimate2094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Favier L, Pattyn F, Berger S, Drews R. Dynamic influence of pinning points on marine ice-sheet stability: A numerical study in Dronning Maud Land, East Antarctica. Cryosphere. 2016;10(6):2623–35. doi:10.5194/tc-10-2623-2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Feldmann J, Levermann A. Collapse of the west antarctic ice sheet after local destabilization of the amundsen basin. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(46):14191–6. doi:10.1073/pnas.1512482112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Feldmann J, Albrecht T, Khroulev C, Pattyn F, Levermann A. Resolution-dependent performance of grounding line motion in a shallow model compared with a full-Stokes model according to the MISMIP3d intercomparison. J Glaciol. 2014;60(220):353–60. doi:10.3189/2014JoG13J093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ferrigno JG, Gould WG. Substantial changes in the coastline of Antarctica revealed by satellite imagery. Polar Rec. 1987;23 (146):577. doi:10.1017/S003224740000807X.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fretwell P, Pritchard HD, Vaughan DG, Bamber JL, Barrand NE, Bell R, Bianchi C, Bingham RG, Blankenship DD, Casassa G, Catania G, Callens D, Conway H, Cook AJ, Corr HFJ, Damaske D, Damm V, Ferraccioli F, Forsberg R, Fujita S, Gim Y, Gogineni P, Griggs JA, Hindmarsh RCA, Holmlund P, Holt JW, Jacobel RW, Jenkins A, Jokat W, Jordan T, King EC, Kohler J, Krabill W, Riger-Kusk M, Langley KA, Leitchenkov G, Leuschen C, Luyendyk BP, Matsuoka K, Mouginot J, Nitsche FO, Nogi Y, Nost OA, Popov SV, Rignot E, Rippin DM, Rivera A, Roberts J, Ross N, Siegert MJ, Smith AM, Steinhage D, Studinger M, Sun B, Tinto BK, Welch BC, Wilson D, Young DA, Xiangbin C, Zirizzotti A. Bedmap2: improved ice bed, surface and thickness datasets for antarctica. Cryosphere. 2013;7:375–93. doi:10.5194/tc-7-375-2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fürst JJ, Durand G, Gillet-Chaulet F, Tavard L, Rankl M, Braun M, Gagliardini O. The safety band of Antarctic ice shelves. Nat Clim Chang. 2016;6:479–82. doi:10.1038/nclimate2912.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gagliardini O, Durand G, Zwinger T, Hindmarsh RCA, Meur EL. 2010. Coupling of ice-shelf melting and buttressing is a key process in ice-sheet dynamics. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2010GL043334.
  50. 50.
    Gillet-Chaulet F, Gagliardini O, Seddik H, Nodet M, Durand G, Ritz C, Zwinger T, Greve R, Vaughan DG. Greenland ice sheet contribution to sea-level rise from a new-generation ice- sheet model. Cryosphere. 2012;6(6):1561–76. doi:10.5194/tc-6-1561-2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gillet-Chaulet F, Durand G, Gagliardini O, Mosbeux C, Mouginot J, Rémy F, Ritz C. Assimilation of surface velocities acquired between 1996 and 2010 to constrain the form of the basal friction law under Pine Island Glacier. Geophys Res Lett. 43(19):10 2016;321:311–10. doi:10.1002/2016GL069937.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Gladstone RM, Payne AJ, Cornford SL. Resolution requirements for grounding-line modelling: Sensitivity to basal drag and ice-shelf buttressing. Ann Glaciol. 2012;53(60):97–105. doi:10.3189/2012AoG60A148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Gladstone RM, Warner RC, Galton-Fenzi BK, Gagliardini O, Zwinger T, Greve R. Marine ice sheet model performance depends on basal sliding physics and sub-shelf melting. Cryosphere. 2016;0:1–17. doi:10.5194/tc-2016-149.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Goldberg D. A variationally derived, depth-integrated approximation to a higher-order glaciological flow model. J Glaciol. 2011;57(201):157–70. doi:10.3189/002214311795306763.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Goldberg D, Holland DM, Schoof C. Grounding line movement and ice shelf buttressing in marine ice sheets. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. 2009;114(4):F04,026. doi:10.1029/2008JF001227.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Goldberg DN, Heimbach P. Parameter and state estimation with a time-dependent adjoint marine ice sheet model. Cryosphere. 2013;7(6):1659–78. doi:10.5194/tc-7-1659-2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Goldberg DN, Little CM, Sergienko OV, Gnanadesikan A, Hallberg R, Oppenheimer M. Investigation of land ice-ocean interaction with a fully coupled ice-ocean model: 1. Model description and behavior. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. 2012;117(2):1–16. doi:10.1029/2011JF002246.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Goldberg DN, Heimbach P, Joughin I, Smith B. Committed retreat of Smith, Pope, and Kohler Glaciers over the next 30 years inferred by transient model calibration. Cryosphere. 2015;9(6):2429–46. doi:10.5194/tc-9-2429-2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Goldberg DN, Narayanan SHK, Hascoet L, Utke J. An optimized treatment for algorithmic differentiation of an important glaciological fixed-point problem. Geosci Model Dev. 2016;9(5):1891–904. doi:10.5194/gmd-9-1891-2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Golledge NR, Kowalewski DE, Naish TR, Levy RH, Fogwill CJ, Gasson EGW. The multi-millennial Antarctic commitment to future sea-level rise. Nature. 2015;526(7573):421–5. doi:10.1038/nature15706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Golledge NR, Levy RH, McKay RM, Naish TR. East Antarctic ice sheet most vulnerable to Weddell Sea warming. Geophys Res Lett. 2017. doi:10.1002/2016GL072422.
  62. 62.
    Gomez N, Pollard D, Mitrovica JX. A 3-d coupled ice sheet – sea level model applied to antarctica through the last 40 ky. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2013;384:88–99. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2013.09.042.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Gomez N, Pollard D, Holland D. Sea-level feedback lowers projections of future antarctic ice-sheet mass loss. Nat Commun. 2015;6(8798). doi:10.1038/ncomms9798.
  64. 64.
    Gong Y, Cornford SL, Payne AJ. Modelling the response of the Lambert Glacier-Amery Ice Shelf system, East Antarctica, to uncertain climate forcing over the 21st and 22nd centuries. Cryosphere. 2014;8(3):1057–68. doi:10.5194/tc-8-1057-2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Gudmundsson GH, Krug J, Durand G, Favier L, Gagliardini O. The stability of grounding lines on retrograde slopes. Cryosphere. 2012;6(6):1497–505. doi:10.5194/tc-6-1497-2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Hindmarsh RCA. Stability of ice rises and uncoupled marine ice sheets. Ann Glaciol. 1996;23:105–14. doi:10.1017/S0260305500013318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hindmarsh RCA, Le Meur E. Dynamical processes involved in the retreat of marine ice sheets. J Glaciol. 2001;47(157):271–82. doi:10.3189/172756501781832269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Huybrechts P. A 3-D model for the Antarctic ice sheet: a sensitivity study on the glacial-interglacial contrast. Climate Dyn. 1990a;5:79–92. doi:10.1007/BF00207423.Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    Huybrechts P. The Antarctic ice sheet during the last glacial-interglacial cycle: a 3D model experiment. Ann Glaciol. 1990b;14:115–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Huybrechts P, Oerlemans J. Response of the Antarctic ice sheet to future greenhouse warming. Clim Dyn. 1990;5(2):93–102. doi:10.1007/BF00207424.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Huybrechts P, Payne A, The EISMINT Intercomparison Group. The EISMINT benchmarks for testing ice–sheet models. Ann Glaciol. 1996;23:1–12. doi:10.1017/S0260305500013197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (AR5): Cambridge University Press, New York. doi:10.1029/2000JD000115 .
  73. 73.
    Joughin I, Smith BE, Medley B. Marine Ice Sheet Collapse Potentially Underway for the Thwaites Glacier Basin, West Antarctica. Science (New York NY). 2014;344:735–8. doi:10.1126/science.1249055.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Konrad H, Sasgen I, Pollard D, Klemann V. Potential of the solid- earth response for limiting long-term west antarctic ice sheet retreat in a warming climate. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2015;432:254–64. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2015.10.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Krug J, Weiss J, Gagliardini O, Durand G. Combining damage and fracture mechanics to model calving. Cryosphere. 2014;8(6):2101–17. doi:10.5194/tc-8-2101-2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Lazeroms WMJ, Jenkins A, Gudmundsson GH, van de Wal RSW. Modelling present-day basal melt rates for Antarctic ice shelves using a parametrization of buoyant meltwater plumes. Cryosphere Discuss. 2017;1–29. doi:10.5194/tc-2017-58.
  77. 77.
    Leguy GR, Asay-Davis XS, Lipscomb WH. Parameterization of basal friction near grounding lines in a one-dimensional ice sheet model. Cryosphere. 2014;8(4):1239–59. doi:10.5194/tc-8-1239-2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    MacAyeal DR. The basal stress distribution of Ice Stream E, Antarctica, inferred by control methods. J Geophys Res. 1992;97(B1):595. doi:10.1029/91JB02454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Matsuoka K, Hindmarsh RCA, Moholdt G, Bentley M J, Pritchard HD, Brown J, Conway H, Drews R, Durand G, Goldberg D, Hattermann T, Kingslake J, Lenaerts JTM, Martin C, Mulvaney R, Nic holls KW, Pattyn F, Ross N, Scambos T, Whitehouse PL. Antarctic ice rises and rumples: their properties and significance for ice-sheet dynamics and evolution. Earth Sci Rev. 2015;150:724–745. doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2015.09.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Mengel M, Levermann A. Ice plug prevents irreversible discharge from East Antarctica. Nat Clim Chang. 2014;27:1–5. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE2226.Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Mercer JH. West Antarctic ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of disaster. Nature. 1978;271(5643):321–5. doi:10.1038/271321a0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Moholdt G, Padman L, Fricker HA. Basal mass budget of ross and filchner-ronne ice shelves, antarctica, derived from lagrangian analysis of icesat altimetry. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. 2014;119 (11):2361–80. doi:10.1002/2014JF003171, 2014JF003171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Morlighem M, Rignot E, Seroussi H, Larour E, Ben Dhia H, Aubry D. Spatial patterns of basal drag inferred using control methods from a full-Stokes and simpler models for Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica. Geophys Res Lett. 2010;37(14):1–6. doi:10.1029/2010GL043853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Morlighem M, Seroussi H, Larour E, Rignot E. Inversion of basal friction in Antarctica using exact and incomplete adjoints of a higher-order model. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. 2013;118 (3):1746–53. doi:10.1002/jgrf.20125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Nias IJ, Cornford SL, Payne AJ. Contrasting the Modelled sensitivity of the Amundsen Sea Embayment ice streams. J Glaciol. 2016;62(233):552–62. doi:10.1017/jog.2016.40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Nick FM, Van Der Veen CJ, Vieli A, Benn DI. A physically based calving model applied to marine outlet glaciers and implications for the glacier dynamics. J Glaciol. 2010;56(199):781–94. doi:10.3189/002214310794457344.
  87. 87.
    Nick FM, Vieli A, Andersen ML, Joughin I, Payne A, Edwards TL, Pattyn F, Van De Wal RSW. Future sea-level rise from Greenland’s main outlet glaciers in a warming climate. Nature. 2013; 497(7448):235–8. doi:10.1038/nature12068.
  88. 88.
    Nowicki S, Bindschadler RA, Abe-Ouchi A, Aschwanden A, Bueler E, Choi H, Fastook J, Granzow G, Greve R, Gutowski G, Herzfeld U, Jackson C, Johnson J, Khroulev C, Larour E, Levermann A, Lipscomb WH, Martin MA, Morlighem M, Parizek BR, Pollard D, Price SF, Ren D, Rignot E, Saito F, Sato T, Seddik H, Seroussi H, Takahashi K, Walker R, Wang WL. Insights into spatial sensitivities of ice mass response to environmental change from the SeaRISE ice sheet modeling project I: Antarctica. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. 2013;118 (2):1025–44. doi:10.1002/jgrf.20076.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Nowicki SMJ, Payne A, Larour E, Seroussi H, Goelzer H, Lipscomb W, Gregory J, Abe-Ouchi A, Shepherd A. Ice sheet model intercomparison project (ismip6) contribution to cmip6. Geosci Model Dev. 2016;9(12):4521–45. doi:10.5194/gmd-9-4521-2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Nye JF. The Distribution of Stress and Velocity in Glaciers and Ice-Sheets. Proc R Soc A: Mathematical Phys Eng Sci. 1957;239 (1216):113–33. doi:10.1098/rspa.1957.0026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Nye JF. The sliding of glaciers. J Glaciol. 1996;3:293–8. doi:10.1007/978-94-015-8705-119.Google Scholar
  92. 92.
    Paolo FS, Fricker HA, Padman L. Volume loss from Antarctic ice shelves is accelerating. Science. 2015;348(6232):327–32. doi:10.1126/science.aaa0940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Pattyn F. Sea-level response to melting of Antarctic ice shelves on multi-centennial time scales with the fast Elementary Thermomechanical Ice Sheet model (f.ETISh v1.0). Cryosphere Discuss (January). 2017;1–52. doi:10.5194/tc-2017-8.
  94. 94.
    Pattyn F, Durand G. Why marine ice sheet model predictions may diverge in estimating future sea level rise. Geophys Res Lett. 2013;40(16):4316–20. doi:10.1002/grl.50824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Pattyn F, Huyghe A, De Brabander S, De Smedt B. 2006. Role of transition zones in marine ice sheet dynamics. J Geophys Res. doi:10.1029/2005JF000394.
  96. 96.
    Pattyn F, Schoof C, Perichon L, Hindmarsh RCA, Bueler E, De Fleurian B, Durand G, Gagliardini O, Gladstone R, Goldberg D, Gudmundsson GH, Huybrechts P, Lee V, Nick FM, Payne AJ, Pollard D, Rybak O, Saito F, Vieli A. Results of the marine ice sheet model intercomparison project, MISMIP. Cryosphere. 2012;6(3):573–88. doi:10.5194/tc-6-573-2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Pattyn F, Perichon L, Durand G, Favier L, Gagliardini O, Hindmarsh RCA, Zwinger T, Albrecht T, Cornford S, Docquier D, Fürst JJ, Goldberg D, Gudmundsson GH, Humbert A, Hütten M, Huybrechts P, Jouvet G, Kleiner T, Larour E, Martin D, Morlighem M, Payne AJ, Pollard D, Rückamp M, Rybak O, Seroussi H, Thoma M, Wilkens N. Grounding-line migration in plan-view marine ice-sheet models: Results of the ice2sea MISMIP3d intercomparison. J Glaciol. 2013;59(215):410–22. doi:10.3189/2013JoG12J129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Payne AJ, Huybrechts P, Abe-Ouchi A, Calov R, Fastook JL, Greve R, Marshall SJ, Marsiat I, Ritz C, Tarasov L, Thomassen M. Results from the EISMINT model intercomparsion: the effects of thermomechanical coupling. J Glaciol. 2000;46(153):227–38. doi:10.3189/172756500781832891.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Pollard D, Deconto RM. Description of a hybrid ice sheet-shelf model, and application to Antarctica. Geosci Model Dev. 2012;5(5):1273–95. doi:10.5194/gmd-5-1273-2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Pollard D, DeConto RM, Alley RB. Potential Antarctic Ice Sheet retreat driven by hydrofracturing and ice cliff failure. Earth Planet Sci Lett. 2015;412:112–21. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2014.12.035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Pollard D, Chang W, Haran M, Applegate P, DeConto R. Large ensemble modeling of the last deglacial retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet: Comparison of simple and advanced statistical techniques. Geosci Model Dev. 2016;9(5):1697–723. doi:10.5194/gmd-9-1697-2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Pralong A, Funk M. Dynamic damage model of crevasse opening and application to glacier calving. J Geophys Res B: Solid Earth. 2005;110(1):1–12. doi:10.1029/2004JB003104.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Rignot E, Jacobs S, Mouginot J, Scheuchl B. Ice-shelf melting around Antarctica. Science. 2013;341(6143):266–70. doi:10.1126/science.1235798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Rignot EJ. Fast recession of a West Antarctic Glacier. Science. 1998;281(5376):549–51. doi:10.1126/science.281.5376.549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ritz C, Rommelaere V, Dumas C. Modeling the evolution of the Antarctic ice sheet over the last 420000 years: Implications for altitude changes in the Vostok region. J Geophys Res. 2001;106(D23):31943–64. doi:10.1029/2001JD900232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Ritz C, Edwards TL, Durand G, Payne AJ, Peyaud V, Hindmarsh RCA. Potential sea-level rise from Antarctic ice-sheet instability constrained by observations. Nature. 2015;528(7580):115–8. doi:10.1038/nature16147, NIHMS150003.Google Scholar
  107. 107.
    Rosier SHR, Gudmundsson GH. Tidal controls on the flow of ice streams. Geophys Res Lett. 2016;43. doi:10.1002/2016GL068220.
  108. 108.
    Rosier SHR, Gudmundsson GH, Green JAM. Insights into ice stream dynamics through modelling their response to tidal forcing. Cryosphere. 2014;8(5):1763–75. doi:10.5194/tc-8-1763-2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Rosier SHR, Gudmundsson GH, Green JaM. Temporal variations in the flow of a large Antarctic ice stream controlled by tidally induced changes in the subglacial water system. Cryosphere. 2015;9(4):1649–61. doi:10.5194/tc-9-1649-2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Scambos TA, Bohlander JA, Shuman CA, Skvarca P. Glacier acceleration and thinning after ice shelf collapse in the Larsen B embayment, Antarctica. Geophys Res Lett. 2004;31(18):2001–4. doi:10.1029/2004GL020670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Schoof C. Ice sheet grounding line dynamics: Steady states, stability, and hysteresis. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. 2007;112(3):F03S28. doi:10.1029/2006JF000664.Google Scholar
  112. 112.
    Schoof C, Hindmarsh R. Thin-film flows with wall slip: an asymptotic analysis of higher order glacier flow models. Quart J Mech Appl Math. 2010;63(1):73–114. doi:10.1093/qjmam/hbp025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Sergienko OV. Basal channels on ice shelves. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. 2013;118(3):1342–55. doi:10.1002/jgrf.20105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Seroussi H, Morlighem M, Larour E, Rignot E, Khazendar A. Hydrostatic grounding line parameterization in ice sheet models. Cryosphere. 2014a;8(6):2075–87. doi:10.5194/tc-8-2075-2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Seroussi H, Morlighem M, Rignot E, Mouginot J, Larour E, Schodlok M, Khazendar A. Sensitivity of the dynamics of Pine Island Glacier, West Antarctica, to climate forcing for the next 50 years. Cryosphere. 2014b;8(5):1699–710. doi:10.5194/tc-8-1699-2014.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Seroussi H, Nakayama Y, Larour E, Menemenlis D, Morlighem M, Rignot E, Khazendar A. Continued retreat of Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, controlled by bed topography and ocean circulation. Geophys Res Lett. 2017. doi:10.1002/2017GL072910.
  117. 117.
    Shepherd A, Wingham DJ, Mansley JAD. Inland thinning of the amundsen sea sector, west antarctica. Geophys Res Lett. 2002;29(10):2–1–2–4. doi:10.1029/2001GL014183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Shepherd A, Ivins ER, Geruo A, Barletta VR, Bentley MJ, Bettadpur S, Briggs KH, Bromwich DH, Forsberg R, Galin N, Horwath M, Jacobs S, Joughin I, King MA, Lenaerts JTM, Li J, Ligtenberg SRM, Luckman A, Luthcke SB, McMillan M, Meister R, Milne G, Mouginot J, Muir A, Nicolas JP, Paden J, Payne J, Pritchard H, Rignot E, Rott H, Sorensen LS, Scambos TA, Scheuchl B, Schrama EJO, Smith B, Sundal AV, van Angelen JH, van de Berg WJ, van den Broeke MR, Vaughan DG, Velicogna I, Wahr J, Whitehouse PL, Wingham DJ, Yi D, Young D, Zwally HJ. A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance. Science. 2012;338(6111):1183–9. doi:10.1126/science.1228102.
  119. 119.
    Sun S, Cornford SL, Gwyther DE, Gladstone RM, Galton-Fenzi BK, Zhao L, Moore JC. Impact of ocean forcing on the Aurora Basin in the 21st and 22nd centuries. Ann Glaciol. 2016;57(73):79–86. doi:10.1017/aog.2016.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Sun S, Cornford S, Gladstone R, Zhao L, Moore J. Ice shelf fracture parameterization in an ice sheet model. Cryosphere Discuss (April). 2017;1–23. doi:10.5194/tc-2017-53.
  121. 121.
    Thomas RH, Bentley CR. A model for Holocene retreat of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Quat Res. 1978;10(2):150–70. doi:10.1016/0033-5894(78)90098-4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Tsai VC, Stewart AL, Thompson AF. Marine ice-sheet profiles and stability under Coulomb basal conditions. J Glaciol. 2015;61(226):205–15. doi:10.3189/2015JoG14J221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Vieli A, Payne AJ. Assessing the ability of numerical ice sheet models to simulate grounding line migration. J Geophys Res Earth Surf. 2005;110;(F1) doi:10.1029/2004JF000202, f01003.
  124. 124.
    Walker RT, Holland DM. A two-dimensional coupled model for ice shelf–ocean interaction. Ocean Model. 2007;17(2):123–39. doi:10.1016/j.ocemod.2007.01.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Walker RT, Holland DM, Parizek BR, Alley RB, Nowicki SMJ, Jenkins A. Efficient flowline simulations of ice-shelf/ocean interactions: sensitivity studies with a fully coupled model. J Phys Oceanogr. 2013;43:2200–10. doi:10.1175/JPO-D-13-037.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Weertman J. Stability of the junction of an ice sheet and an ice shelf. J Glaciol. 1974;13(67):3–11. doi:10.3198/1974JoG13-67-3-11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Wingham DJ, Ridout AJ, Scharroo R, Arthern RJ, Shum CK. Antarctic elevation change from 1992 to 1996. Science. 1998;282(5388):456–8. doi:10.1126/science.282.5388.456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Winkelmann R, Martin MA, Haseloff M, Albrecht T, Bueler E, Khroulev C, Levermann A. The Potsdam Parallel Ice Sheet Model (PISM-PIK) - Part 1: model description. Cryosphere. 2011;5(3):715–26. doi:10.5194/tc-5-715-2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Winkelmann R, Levermann A, Ridgwell A, Caldeira K. Combustion of available fossil fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the antarctic ice sheet. Sci Adv. 2015;1(8).doi:10.1126/sciadv.1500589.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire de GlaciologieUniversité libre de BruxellesBruxellesBelgium
  2. 2.Institut des Géosciences de l’Environnement (IGE)Université Grenoble-AlpesGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations