Application of HadCM3@Bristolv1.0 simulations of paleoclimate as forcing for an ice-sheet model, ANICE2.1: set-up and benchmark experiments

Berends, Constantijn J.; de Boer, Bas; van de Wal, Roderik S. W.

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4657-2018

Articles | Volume 11, issue 11

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4657-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-11-4657-2018

© Author(s) 2018. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 11, issue 11

Development and technical paper

|

22 Nov 2018

Development and technical paper |

| 22 Nov 2018

Application of HadCM3@Bristolv1.0 simulations of paleoclimate as forcing for an ice-sheet model, ANICE2.1: set-up and benchmark experiments

Constantijn J. Berends, Bas de Boer, and Roderik S. W. van de Wal

Download

Final revised paper (published on 22 Nov 2018)
Preprint (discussion started on 09 Jul 2018)

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Review', Fuyuki SAITO, 31 Aug 2018
- AC1: 'Rebuttal to review by Saito, F.', Tijn Berends, 27 Sep 2018
RC2: 'Review of Berends et al', Lev Tarasov, 07 Sep 2018
AC2: 'Rebuttal to review by Tarasov, L. and Bahadory, T.', Tijn Berends, 27 Sep 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

AR by Tijn Berends on behalf of the Authors (27 Sep 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish subject to minor revisions (review by editor) (18 Oct 2018) by Steven Phipps

Dear authors,

Thank you for submitting a revised version of the manuscript.

I have carefully reviewed the revised manuscript, as well as your responses to the reports by the referees. While I consider that your responses to the referees' comments are broadly satisfactory, I would like to see you make some further minor changes in response to the concerns that were raised.

Please therefore consider the following comments. Page and line numbers here refer to the “author's response” document that you uploaded.

REVISED MANUSCRIPT

* Title: “paleo” is a prefix, not a word. Please replace it with “paleoclimate” or similar.

* Abstract: Please revise the reference to “hybrid GCM-ice sheet modelling”, as you acknowledge that your study does not fit into this category.

* Page 20, line 7: “climate models” is a very broad term, that could incorporate very fast models such as box models or EMICs. Please replace with “GCMs” or similar.

* Page 20, line 11: … gain insight to the …

* Page 20, lines 24-30: Could you briefly summarise (~1-2 sentences) what these studies found/concluded? What were the strengths and weaknesses of these approaches?

* Page 22, line 15: Insert “the” before “LGM” and “period” after “pre-industrial”.

* Page 24, lines 8-9: “nearly identical” is a very vague statement. Please be more precise. Also I believe that, over this range, you can simply say “logarithmic rather than linear”.

* Page 24, line 26: Can you justify the choice of weights in Equation 4?

* Page 25, line 1: Again “quite low” is a vague value statement. Please be more precise.

* Page 25, lines 7-11: Again, please be more precise throughout this section. Use a more specific statement than “quite low”. What is the threshold above which the behaviour that you describe occurs?

* Page 29, line 21: … increase that takes place …

* Page 31, line 13: … “catching up” at only …

* Figure 6: Please revise the caption to include the ICE-5G record that you have added to the final panel.

RESPONSES TO REVIEWERS

* Page 1, lines 23-27: This information would be highly beneficial to the reader. Please incorporate it into the manuscript itself.

* Page 2, lines 1-5: Please incorporate this information into the manuscript (into the main text and/or figure captions) rather than requiring the reader to consult Boer et al. (2014).

* Page 5, lines 27-34: Your response indicates known limitations to your approach i.e. you do not claim that it captures all existing feedback processes, and you do not claim that it is as comprehensive as a fully-coupled GCM. This is fine, but please incorporate these caveats into the text that you have added at page 21, lines 8-13.

* Page 14, lines 11-15: Please incorporate this information into the manuscript, as it provides significant justification for your choice of methodology.

* Page 18, lines 4-9: Again, this is important information and should be incorporated into the manuscript.

Steven Phipps
Handling Topical Editor

Hide

AR by Tijn Berends on behalf of the Authors (23 Oct 2018) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Publish as is (08 Nov 2018) by Steven Phipps

AR by Tijn Berends on behalf of the Authors (08 Nov 2018)

Short summary

We have devised a novel way to couple a climate model to an ice-sheet model. Usually, climate models are too slow to simulate more than a few centuries, whereas our new model set-up can simulate a full 120 000-year ice age in about 12 h. This makes it possible to look at the interactions between global climate and ice sheets on long timescales, something which is relevant for both research into past climate and future projections.