University of Montana ScholarWorks at University of Montana Computer Science Faculty Publications Computer Science 6-12-2013 Insights Into Spatial Sensitivities of Ice Mass Response to Environmental Change from the SeaRISE Ice Sheet Modeling Project I : Antarctica Sophie Nowicki NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland Robert A. Bindschadler NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, [email protected] Ayako Abe-Ouchi University of Tokyo - Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan Andy Aschwanden University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska EFollowd Bueler this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cs_pubs University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska Part of the Computer Sciences Commons LetSee next us page know for additional how authors access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Nowicki, Sophie; Bindschadler, Robert A.; Abe-Ouchi, Ayako; Aschwanden, Andy; Bueler, Ed; Choi, Hyeungu; Fastook, Jim; Granzow, Glen; Greve, Ralf; Gutowski, Gail; Herzfeld, Ute; Jackson, Charles; Johnson, Jesse; Khroulev, Constantine; Larour, Eric; Levermann, Anders; Lipscomb, William; Martin, Maria A.; Morlighem, Mathieu; Parizek, Byron R.; Pollard, David; Price, Stephen F.; Ren, Diandong; Rignot, Eric; Saito, Fuyuki; Sato, Tatsuru; Seddik, Hakime; Seroussi, Helene; Takahashi, Kunio; Walker, Ryan; and Wang, Wei Li, "Insights Into Spatial Sensitivities of Ice Mass Response to Environmental Change from the SeaRISE Ice Sheet Modeling Project I : Antarctica" (2013). Computer Science Faculty Publications. 21. https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cs_pubs/21 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Computer Science at ScholarWorks at University of Montana. It has been accepted for inclusion in Computer Science Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at University of Montana. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Sophie Nowicki, Robert A. Bindschadler, Ayako Abe-Ouchi, Andy Aschwanden, Ed Bueler, Hyeungu Choi, Jim Fastook, Glen Granzow, Ralf Greve, Gail Gutowski, Ute Herzfeld, Charles Jackson, Jesse Johnson, Constantine Khroulev, Eric Larour, Anders Levermann, William Lipscomb, Maria A. Martin, Mathieu Morlighem, Byron R. Parizek, David Pollard, Stephen F. Price, Diandong Ren, Eric Rignot, Fuyuki Saito, Tatsuru Sato, Hakime Seddik, Helene Seroussi, Kunio Takahashi, Ryan Walker, and Wei Li Wang This article is available at ScholarWorks at University of Montana: https://scholarworks.umt.edu/cs_pubs/21 JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH: EARTH SURFACE, VOL. 118, 1002–1024, doi:10.1002/jgrf.20081, 2013 Insights into spatial sensitivities of ice mass response to environmental change from the SeaRISE ice sheet modeling project I: Antarctica Sophie Nowicki,1 Robert A. Bindschadler,1 Ayako Abe-Ouchi,2 Andy Aschwanden,3 Ed Bueler,3 Hyeungu Choi,4 Jim Fastook,5 Glen Granzow,6 Ralf Greve,7 Gail Gutowski,8 Ute Herzfeld,9 Charles Jackson,8 Jesse Johnson,6 Constantine Khroulev,3 Eric Larour,10 Anders Levermann,11 William H. Lipscomb,12 Maria A. Martin,11 Mathieu Morlighem,13 Byron R. Parizek,14 David Pollard,15 Stephen F. Price,12 Diandong Ren,16 Eric Rignot,10,13 Fuyuki Saito,17 Tatsuru Sato,7 Hakime Seddik,7 Helene Seroussi,10 Kunio Takahashi,17 Ryan Walker,1,18 and Wei Li Wang1 Received 28 July 2012; revised 12 April 2013; accepted 23 April 2013; published 12 June 2013. [1] Atmospheric, oceanic, and subglacial forcing scenarios from the Sea-level Response to Ice Sheet Evolution (SeaRISE) project are applied to six three-dimensional thermomechanical ice-sheet models to assess Antarctic ice sheet sensitivity over a 500 year timescale and to inform future modeling and field studies. Results indicate (i) growth with warming, except within low-latitude basins (where inland thickening is outpaced by marginal thinning); (ii) mass loss with enhanced sliding (with basins dominated by high driving stresses affected more than basins with low-surface-slope streaming ice); and (iii) mass loss with enhanced ice shelf melting (with changes in West Antarctica dominating the signal due to its marine setting and extensive ice shelves; cf. minimal impact in the Terre Adelie, George V, Oates, and Victoria Land region of East Antarctica). Ice loss due to dynamic changes associated with enhanced sliding and/or sub-shelf melting exceeds the gain due to increased precipitation. Furthermore, differences in results between and within basins as well as the controlling impact of sub-shelf melting on ice dynamics highlight the need for improved understanding of basal conditions, grounding-zone processes, ocean-ice interactions, and the numerical representation of all three. Citation: Nowicki, S., et al. (2013), 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., 118, 1002–1024, doi:10.1002/jgrf.20081. 1. Introduction 2007] if all its ice were to melt. Over the past decades, rapid and dramatic changes have been observed in Antarctica: [2] Antarctica contains 70% of the world’s fresh water, spectacular collapses of several ice shelves in the Antarctic which represents a potential 56.6 m of sea level rise [IPCC, Peninsula [Scambos et al., 2004, 2009] and the acceleration Additional supporting information may be found in the online version of 9Department of Electrical, Computer and Energy Engineering and this article. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University This article is a companion to Nowicki et al. [2013] doi:10.1002/jgrf.20076. of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado, USA. 1Code 615, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland, USA. 10Jet Propulsion Laboratory—California Institute of Technology, 2 Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Pasadena, California, USA. Kashiwa, Chiba, Japan. 11Potsdam Institute for Climate Research, Potsdam, Germany. 3 Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Arkansas, USA. 12Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA. 4Sigma Space Corporation, Lanham, Maryland, USA. 13Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, 5 Computer Science/Quaternary Institute, University of Maine, Orono, Irvine, California, USA. Maine, USA. 14Mathematics and Geoscience, Penn State DuBois, College Place, 6 College of Arts and Sciences, The University of Montana, Missoula, DuBois, Pennsylvania, USA. Montana, USA. 15Earth and Environmental Systems Institute, Pennsylvania State 7 Institute of Low Temperature Science, Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan. University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA. 8 Institute for Geophysics, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, 16Department of Physics, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Texas, USA. Australia. 17 Corresponding author: S. Nowicki, Code 615, NASA Goddard Space Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, Research Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771, USA. ([email protected]) Institute for Global Change, 3173-25 Showamachi, Kanazawa, Yokohama, Kanagawa, Japan. ©2013. American Geophysical Union. All Rights Reserved. 18Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, University of 2169-9003/13/10.1002/jgrf.20081 Maryland, College Park, Maryland, USA. 1002 NOWICKI ET AL.: SEARISE ANTARCTICA of massive outlet glaciers such as Pine Island Glacier in the hand, the weakness of such an approach lies in the difficulty Amundsen Sea Embayment [Rignot, 2008]. Seven out of of evaluating the absolute accuracy of each of the models 12 ice shelves on the Antarctic Peninsula have significantly involved and therefore of their aggregate ensemble retreated or been almost entirely lost, and 87% of the 244 projection. marine glacier fronts have retreated during the past 60 years [5] SeaRISE’s strategy, as described in Bindschadler et al. [Cook et al., 2005]. These observed changes, thought to have [2013], is to therefore employ multiple models of ice been triggered by ocean warming and atmospheric changes sheet flow initialized by a common dataset to mitigate [Shepherd et al., 2004; Payne et al., 2004; Pritchard et al., model-to-model differences and forced externally by a set 2012], suggest that this ice sheet is far more vulnerable to of common climate scenarios. The data sets for the climate change than initially anticipated by the Fourth Antarctic ice sheet are available at http://websvr.cs.umt.edu/ Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on isis/index.php/Data and presented in Bindschadler et al. Climate Change (IPCC AR4) [IPCC, 2007]. The IPCC [2013]. This data include, for example, accumulation from AR4 sea level rise projections for the year 2100, which observation [Vaughan et al., 1999; Arthern et al., 2006] or ranged from 0.18 to 0.58 m, were acknowledged to be con- climate models [van de Berg et al., 2006], two basal heat servative, as these values excluded “future dynamical fluxes [Shapiro and Ritzwoller, 2004; FoxMauleetal., changes in ice sheet flow,” because no ice sheet model could 2005], along with surface elevation, basal topography, and reproduce the recently observed changes occurring on the ice thickness from ALBMAP v1 [Le Brocq et al., 2010]. Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. As a primary goal was to involve as many ice sheet models [3] The IPCC AR4 conclusions triggered a number of as possible, the experiments were designed to be simple workshops to discuss improvements in the capability of enough so that any model that was willing to contribute to existing ice