Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-x2lbr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-12T09:40:00.201Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Results from the EISMINT model intercomparison: the effects of thermomechanical coupling

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

A. J. Payne
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Southampton, Highfield, Southampton SO17 1BJ, England
P. Huybrechts
Affiliation:
Geografisch Institut, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, B-1050 Brussels, Belgium
A. Abe-Ouchi
Affiliation:
Center for Climate System Research, University of Tokyo, Tokyo 153, Japan
R. Calov
Affiliation:
Institut für Mechanik III, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Hochschulstrasse 1, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
J. L. Fastook
Affiliation:
Department of Computer Science, University of Maine, Orono, Maine 04469, U.S.A.
R. Greve
Affiliation:
Institut für Mechanik III, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Hochschulstrasse 1, D-64289 Darmstadt, Germany
S. J. Marshall
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia V6T1Z4, Canada
I. Marsiat
Affiliation:
Department of Meteorology, University of Reading, 2 Earley Gate, Whiteknights, P.O. Box 243, Reading RG6 6BB, England
C. Ritz
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l’Environnement du CNRS, 54 rue Molière, BP 96, 38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères Cedex, France
L. Tarasov
Affiliation:
Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A7, Canada
M. P. A. Thomassen
Affiliation:
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, P.O. Box 80005, 3508 TA Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper discusses results from the second phase of the European Ice Sheet Modelling Initiative (EISMINT). It reports the intercomparison of ten operational ice-sheet models and uses a series of experiments to examine the implications of thermomechanical coupling for model behaviour. A schematic, circular ice sheet is used in the work which investigates both steady states and the response to stepped changes in climate. The major finding is that the radial symmetry implied in the experimental design can, under certain circumstances, break down with the formation of distinct, regularly spaced spokes of cold ice which extended from the interior of the ice sheet outward to the surrounding zone of basal melt. These features also manifest themselves in the thickness and velocity distributions predicted by the models. They appear to be a common feature to all of the models which took part in the intercomparison, and may stem from interactions between ice temperature, flow and surface form. The exact nature of these features varies between models, and their existence appears to be controlled by the overall thermal regime of the ice sheet. A second result is that there is considerable agreement between the models in their predictions of global-scale response to imposed climate change.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2000
Figure 0

Table 1. The groups which took part in the EISMINTSGEs

Figure 1

Table 2. Constants used in the experiments

Figure 2

Table 3. Brief summary of the full SGE set

Figure 3

Table 4. Results for basic glaciological quantities after 200 kyr in experiment A

Figure 4

Fig. 1. Predicted steady-state basal temperatures in experiment A for each model in the intercomparison. Temperatures are in K and uncorrected for melting-point variation. The ice-covered area is shaded grey. The units of the x and y axes are kilometers.

Figure 5

Fig. 2. Predicted steady-state distributions of (a) ice thickness in m, (b) flux magnitudes in m2 a−1 (calculated as the 2-norm of the ice-flux vectors ) and (c) flow factor A in 10−25 Pa−3a−1 for model W in experiment A. Only the lower left quadrant of the domain is shown, and the ice-covered area is shaded grey. The units of the x and y axes are kilometers.

Figure 6

Fig. 3. Predicted steady-state basal temperatures in experiment F for each model in the intercomparison.

Figure 7

Fig. 4. Predicted steady-state distributions of (a) ice thickness, (b) flux magnitudes and (c) flow factor for model W in experiment F.

Figure 8

Table 5. Differences between experiments B and A

Figure 9

Fig. 5. Time series of thickness (a) and basal-temperature (b) change at the divide (750 km, 750 km) during the first 40 kyr of experiment B for each model in the intercomparison.

Figure 10

Fig. 6. Predicted steady-state basal temperatures in experiment B for each model in the intercomparison.

Figure 11

Table 6. Differences between experiments C and A

Figure 12

Fig. 7. Time series of thickness (a) and basal-temperature (b) change at the divide during the first 80 kyr of experiment C for each model in the intercomparison.

Figure 13

Table 7 Differences between experiments D and A

Figure 14

Fig. 8. Time series of thickness (a) and basal-temperature (b) change at the divide during the first 80 kyr of experiment D for each model in the intercomparison.

Figure 15

Table 8. Results for basic glaciological quantities after 200 kyr in experiment G

Figure 16

Fig. 9. Predicted steady-state basal temperatures in experiment G for each model in the intercomparison.

Figure 17

Table 9. Results for basic glaciological quantities after 200 kyr in experiment H

Figure 18

Fig. 10. Time series of changing basal-melt area fraction during the course of experiment H for each model in the intercomparison.

Figure 19

Fig. 11. Predicted basal temperatures in experiment H at 200 kyr for each model in the intercomparison.