2018 · cited by 0
Abstract. Antarctica and Greenland hold enough ice to raise sea level by more than 65 m if they were to melt completely. Predicting future ice sheet mass balance depends on our ability to model these ice sheets, which is limited by our current understanding of several key physical processes, such as iceberg calving. Large-scale ice flow models either ignore this process or represent it crudely. To model fracture formation, which is an important component of many calving models, Continuum Damage Mechanics as well as Linear Fracture Mechanics are commonly used. However, these methods applied across the Antarctic continent have a large number of uncertainties. Here we present an alternative, statistics-based method to model the most probable zones of nucleation of fractures. We test this approach on all main ice shelf regions in Antarctica, including the Antarctic Peninsula. We can model up to 99 % of observed fractures, with an average rate of 84 % for grounded ice and 61 % for floating ice and mean overestimation error of 26 % and 20 %, respectively, thus providing the basis for modelling calving of ice shelves. We find that Antarctic ice shelves can be classified into groups based on the factors that control fracture location. The factors that trigger fracturing as well as sustain existing fractures advected from upstream vary from one ice shelf to another.
TC - Peer review - A statistical fracture model for Antarctic ice shelves and glaciers Articles | Volume 12, issue 10 Article Assets Peer review Metrics Related articles Articles | Volume 12, issue 10 https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3187-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3187-2018 © Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Articles | Volume 12, issue 10 Article Assets Peer review Metrics Related articles Research article | 05 Oct 2018 Research article | | 05 Oct 2018 A statistical fracture model for Antarctic ice shelves and glaciers Veronika Emetc , Paul Tregoning , Mathieu Morlighem , Chris Borstad , and Malcolm Sambridge Veronika Emetc CORRESPONDING AUTHOR veronika.emetc@anu.edu.au × Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia Paul Tregoning https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7192-5391 × Research School of Earth Science, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia Mathieu Morlighem https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5219-1310 × Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, USA Chris Borstad https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6992-1770 × Department of Arctic Geophysics, The University Centre in Svalbard, Longyearbyen, Norway Malcolm Sambridge
If I were to fully trust the inferred probability of fracture, then I would be forced to conclude that the damage inversion is rather unreliable. But the damage method is not only picking up on surface crevasses and might be sensitive to depth of crevasses, amongst other things. (It is very disturbing that the damage method is not picking up on known locations of rifts in ice shelves.) Moreover, the inference might not be as reliable in all regions. This isn’t something that needs to be resolved, but could be addressed in more detail. Figures: I would have liked to see the same color scale used for damage and probability as both of these range from 0 to unity to make it easier to compare.
Page 4, line 20: What do you do to infer ice temperature Page 5, missing space between swell and open parentheses. Page 5: I don’t know that there is any evidence to support the hypotheses that tidal deformation is a strong driver of basal fractures or rifts. It might, but the strength of this statement is a bit excessive given the fact that no references are provided to support it. Page 6 line 15: How are the discrete fracture locations observed turned into a probability distribution? This seems to be described later. Is this related to the area that they occupy? Also, note that you can have deep or shallow surface crevasses.
The 450-metre resolution horizontal ice velocities were taken from InSAR (Rignot et al., 2011b, a). - page 4, line 27: two-dimensional (2-D) and three-dimensional (3-D) ... - page 5, line 23: mélange is more a mixture of icebergs and sea ice than snow and sea ice - page 6, line 34: to the fact if there -> to the fact that if there - Eq. (1): should be x^*_{ij} in this equation? - after Eq. (5), is it a new sentence (then a dot after (5)), or not (then a "and" before Von Mises). - page 12, line 4: fracture formation (described in Section 4.2.1): -> fracture formation (described in Section 4.2.1).
Regards, Olivier Gagliardini Hide AR by Veronika Emetc on behalf of the Authors (11 Sep 2018) Author's response Manuscript ED: Publish subject to technical corrections (18 Sep 2018) by Olivier Gagliardini Dear Veronika, Thanks for this new version and your reply to my comments. After this last reading, I have still some technical points that should be corrected before moving to the publication stage (see below). Best regards, Olivier Gagliardini Technical corrections: - page 5, lines 6-7: are these two BC rely needed for the statistical model? I think it is for the ice flow model?
Hide AR by Veronika Emetc on behalf of the Authors (19 Sep 2018) Author's response Manuscript Download Article (22751 KB) Full-text XML Supplement (37834 KB) BibTeX EndNote Short summary The paper includes a model that can be used to predict zones of fracture formation in both floating and grounded ice in Antarctica. We used observations and a statistics-based model to predict fractures in most ice shelves in Antarctica as an alternative to the damage-based approach. We can predict the location of observed fractures with an average success rate of 84% for grounded ice and 61% for floating ice and mean overestimation error of 26% and 20%, respectively.
Get citation