trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Ice sheets exhibit specific flow and fracture behavior when crossing a cliff.
the verdict
INSUFFICIENT LEANING
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
2 sources for · 0 against

The available literature touches on ice shelf fracture modeling and marine ice cliff instability parameterizations, but does not comprehensively establish the specific flow and fracture behavior of ice sheets crossing a cliff.

Evidence for · 2
2021 · cited by 0
Abstract. Due to global warming and particularly high regional ocean warming, both Thwaites and Pine Island glaciers in the Amundsen region of the Antarctic Ice Sheet could lose their buttressing ice shelves over time. We analyze the possible consequences using the Parallel Ice Sheet Model (PISM), applying a simple cliff-calving parameterization and an ice-mélange-buttressing model. We find that the instantaneous loss of ice-shelf buttressing, due to enforced ice-shelf melting, initiates grounding line retreat and triggers the marine ice sheet instability (MISI). As a consequence, the grounding line progresses into the interior of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and leads to a sea level contribution of 0.6 m within 100 a. By subjecting the exposed ice cliffs to cliff calving using our simplified parameterization, we also analyze the marine ice cliff instability (MICI). In our simulations it can double or even triple the sea level contribution depending on the only loosely constraint parameter which determines the maximum cliff-calving rate. The speed of MICI depends on this upper bound on the calving rate which is given by the ice mélange buttressing the glacier. However, stabilization of MICI may occur for geometric reasons. Since the embayment geometry changes as MICI advances into the interior of the ice sheet, the upper bound on calving rates is reduced and the progress of MICI is slowed down. Although we cannot claim that our simulations bear relevant quantitative estimates of the effect of ice-mélange buttressing on MICI, the mechanism has the potential to stop the instability. Further research is needed to evaluate its role for the past and future evolution of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. TC - Peer review - Stabilizing effect of mélange buttressing on the marine ice-cliff instability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Articles | Volume 16, issue 5 Article Assets Peer review Metrics Related articles Articles | Volume 16, issue 5 https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-1979-2022 © Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Special issue: Improving the contribution of the land cryosphere to sea level... https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-16-1979-2022 © Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Articles | Volume 16, issue 5 Article Assets Peer review Metrics Related articles Research article | 24 May 2022 Research article | | 24 May 2022 Stabilizing effect of mélange buttressing on the marine ice-cliff instability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet Tanja Schlemm , Johannes Feldmann , Ricarda Winkelmann , and Anders Levermann Tanja Schlemm × Earth System Dynamics, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany Johannes Feldmann https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4210-0221 × Earth System Dynamics, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany Ricarda Winkelmann https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1248-3217 × Earth System Dynamics, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany Anders Levermann CORRESPONDING AUTHOR anders.levermann@pik-potsdam.de https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4432-4704 × Earth System Dynamics, Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany Institute of Physics and Astronomy, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, New York, USA Download Final revised paper (published on 24 May 2022) Preprint (discussion started on 12 Aug 2021) Interactive discussion Status : closed Comment types : AC – author | RC – referee | CC – community | EC – editor | CEC – chief editor | : Report abuse RC1 : 'Comment on The authors use a simple cliff-calving parameterization and a mélange buttressing model that were proposed and tested on idealized cases in their previous papers and apply them to real glacier cases in this paper. MICI is an important mechanism that could lead to large uncertainties in modeling the physics of the ice sheets. Recent theoretical and modeling studies (Ma et al., 2017, Bassis et al., 2017, Mercenier et al., 2018) have investigated and analyzed mechanisms for MICI. Applying a more physically based cliff-calving law on real glaciers setting is the timely step to makes an important contribution to the MICI hypothesis. 
 
 P18L6: “This seasonality can be modelled with a time-dependent …” 
 Does this experiment include melting/freezing of mélange? How are the results affected with melting/freezing of mélange? 
 
 P18L26: “The mélange parameterization assumes a constant calving rate…” 
 Do you mean “the upper bound on calving rates (C_max)? 
 
 P20L2: “The processes by which ice shelves fracture… in an ice sheet model” 
 Add references. The evolving glacier configurations are due to this enforced removal of ice and have little to do with concepts of Marine Ice Sheet and Ice Cliff Instabilities that are instabilities of steady state configurations. The experiments use parameterizations, which main property is simplicity, however, the manuscript does not provide physical justification for their use. The interpretation of the results ignores a large body of studies of marine outlet glacier dynamics (a non-exhaustive list is below). The authors then compare sea-level contributions from the Marine Ice Cliff Instability (MICI) with those from the Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) alone. 
 Overall, the manuscript raises interesting questions and presents a great deal of work toward addressing them. However, I found the organization confusing. Many results appear together with uneven levels of detail in the discussion. One of the major conclusions seems to be about interpreting an upper bound on cliff calving rate; the framing of that analysis in particular confused me.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:partial_only:for=0+2p:against=0+0p | v55:multi_partial_one_side:lean=lean_partial:for:one_sided

More for · 1
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.
Everything we examined (2)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. Stabilizing effect of mélange buttressing on the Marine Ice Cliff Instability of the West Antarctic Ice Sheetpeer-reviewedno side taken
  2. A statistical fracture model for Antarctic ice shelves and glacierspeer-reviewedno side taken
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
held for human review11 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt