No Cover Image

Journal article 4 views

Results of the second Ice Shelf–Ocean Model Intercomparison Project (ISOMIP+)

Claire K. Yung Orcid Logo, Xylar S. Asay-Davis Orcid Logo, Alistair Adcroft, Christopher Y. S. Bull, Jan De Rydt Orcid Logo, Michael S. Dinniman Orcid Logo, Benjamin K. Galton-Fenzi Orcid Logo, Daniel Goldberg Orcid Logo, David E. Gwyther Orcid Logo, Robert Hallberg, Matthew Harrison Orcid Logo, Tore Hattermann Orcid Logo, David M. Holland, Denise Holland, Paul R. Holland, Jim Jordan Orcid Logo, Nicolas C. Jourdain Orcid Logo, Kazuya Kusahara Orcid Logo, Gustavo Marques Orcid Logo, Pierre Mathiot, Dimitris Menemenlis, Adele K. Morrison, Yoshihiro Nakayama, Olga Sergienko Orcid Logo, Robin S. Smith Orcid Logo, Alon Stern, Ralph Timmermann, Qin Zhou Orcid Logo

The Cryosphere, Volume: 20, Issue: 4, Pages: 2053 - 2088

Swansea University Author: Jim Jordan Orcid Logo

Full text not available from this repository: check for access using links below.

Abstract

Ocean-driven basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves plays an important role in the mass loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Ice shelf cavity-resolving ocean models are a valuable tool for understanding ice shelf-ocean interactions and for simulating projections of ice shelf and ocean states under futur...

Full description

Published in: The Cryosphere
ISSN: 1994-0424
Published: Copernicus GmbH 2026
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa71766
Abstract: Ocean-driven basal melting of Antarctic ice shelves plays an important role in the mass loss of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. Ice shelf cavity-resolving ocean models are a valuable tool for understanding ice shelf-ocean interactions and for simulating projections of ice shelf and ocean states under future climate. Designed to assess the current state of ice shelf–ocean modelling, the second Ice Shelf–Ocean Model Intercomparison Project, ISOMIP+, consists of 12 ocean model configurations submitted with a common, idealised experimental setup. Here, we focus on the experiments Ocean0–2 (Asay-Davis et al., 2016), which are ocean models with idealised, static ice shelf geometries, but where the ocean reaches a balance with prescribed far-field ocean conditions. Different thermal transfer coefficient values (ranging from 0.011 to 0.2) are used for each model in the melting parameterisation to achieve a common, tuned melt rate since the models cover a range of types of vertical coordinates, ice–ocean boundary layer treatments, and numerical schemes. These model differences lead to spread in the resultant ocean properties, circulation, boundary-layer structure and spatial distribution of melting. We also highlight similarities between models, such as a shared linear relationship across most models between melt rate and overturning and barotropic streamfunctions during the spin-up and spin-down, demonstrating a robust relationship between melt and circulation across models and forcing conditions. The ISOMIP+ results provide a systematic comparison of ice shelf cavity-capable ocean models. However, we also demonstrate the need for realistic ice shelf–ocean model intercomparison projects (some already underway) to assess model biases and inter-model variation against sparse observations. Further research is needed to understand the differences between models and further improve our modelled representations of the ice–ocean boundary layer and ice shelf cavity circulation.
College: Faculty of Science and Engineering
Issue: 4
Start Page: 2053
End Page: 2088