<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">GMD</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Geoscientific Model Development</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">GMD</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Geosci. Model Dev.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1991-9603</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus GmbH</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/gmd-8-1547-2015</article-id><title-group><article-title>NEMO–ICB (v1.0): interactive icebergs in the NEMO ocean model globally
configured at eddy-permitting resolution</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{NEMO--ICB (v1.0)}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{R. Marsh et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Marsh</surname><given-names>R.</given-names></name>
          <email>rm12@soton.ac.uk</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Ivchenko</surname><given-names>V. O.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Skliris</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Alderson</surname><given-names>S.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Bigg</surname><given-names>G. R.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff4">
          <name><surname>Madec</surname><given-names>G.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Blaker</surname><given-names>A. T.</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5454-0131</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Aksenov</surname><given-names>Y.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Sinha</surname><given-names>B.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Coward</surname><given-names>A. C.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Le Sommer</surname><given-names>J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Merino</surname><given-names>N.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff6">
          <name><surname>Zalesny</surname><given-names>V. B.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>University of Southampton, National Oceanography Centre,
Southampton, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, European Way,
Southampton SO14 3ZH, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Department of Geography, University of Sheffield,
Sheffield, UK</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>LOCEAN-IPSL, CNRS-IRD-UPMC-MNHN, Paris,
France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>LGGE, UMR5183, CNRS-UJF, Grenoble, France</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>6</label><institution>Institute of Numerical Mathematics, Russian Academy of
Sciences, Gubkin St. 8, Moscow, 119333, Russia</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">R. Marsh (rm12@soton.ac.uk)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>27</day><month>May</month><year>2015</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>8</volume>
      <issue>5</issue>
      <fpage>1547</fpage><lpage>1562</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>23</day><month>June</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>25</day><month>August</month><year>2014</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>27</day><month>February</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>13</day><month>April</month><year>2015</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015.html">This article is available from https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>An established iceberg module, ICB, is used interactively with the
Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO)
ocean model in a new implementation, NEMO–ICB (v1.0). A 30-year hindcast
(1976–2005) simulation with an eddy-permitting (0.25<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) global
configuration of NEMO–ICB is undertaken to evaluate the influence of
icebergs on sea ice, hydrography, mixed layer depths (MLDs), and ocean currents,
through comparison with a control simulation in which the equivalent iceberg
mass flux is applied as coastal runoff, a common forcing in ocean models. In
the Southern Hemisphere (SH), drift and melting of icebergs are in balance after
around 5 years, whereas the equilibration timescale for the Northern
Hemisphere (NH) is 15–20 years. Iceberg drift patterns, and Southern Ocean
iceberg mass, compare favourably with available observations. Freshwater
forcing due to iceberg melting is most pronounced very locally, in the
coastal zone around much of Antarctica, where it often exceeds in magnitude
and opposes the negative freshwater fluxes associated with sea ice freezing.
However, at most locations in the polar Southern Ocean, the annual-mean
freshwater flux due to icebergs, if present, is typically an order of
magnitude smaller than the contribution of sea ice melting and
precipitation. A notable exception is the southwest Atlantic sector of the
Southern Ocean, where iceberg melting reaches around 50 % of net
precipitation over a large area. Including icebergs in place of coastal
runoff, sea ice concentration and thickness are notably decreased at most
locations around Antarctica, by up to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % in the eastern
Weddell Sea, with more limited increases, of up to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 % in
the Bellingshausen Sea. Antarctic sea ice mass decreases by 2.9 %,
overall. As a consequence of changes in net freshwater forcing and sea ice,
salinity and temperature distributions are also substantially altered.
Surface salinity increases by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 psu around much of
Antarctica, due to suppressed coastal runoff, with extensive freshening at
depth, extending to the greatest depths in the polar Southern Ocean where
discernible effects on both salinity and temperature reach 2500 m in the
Weddell Sea by the last pentad of the simulation. Substantial physical and
dynamical responses to icebergs, throughout the global ocean, are explained
by rapid propagation of density anomalies from high-to-low latitudes.
Complementary to the baseline model used here, three prototype modifications
to NEMO–ICB are also introduced and discussed.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Freshwater fluxes from the terrestrial cryosphere comprise liquid runoff and
calved icebergs. This partitioning is believed to be significant for
freshwater distribution in the oceans (Gladstone et al., 2001). Runoff
freshens the ocean locally near the coast, while individual icebergs
represent pathways for continuous and increasingly remote freshwater
influence on the open ocean (Bigg and Wadley, 1996; Bigg et al., 1997).</p>
      <p>In order to accommodate the climatic influence of icebergs, principally
through the freshwater input to the ocean, it is necessary to model their
statistical distribution, rather than track large numbers of individual bergs
(Hunke and Comeau, 2011). Interactive ocean–iceberg modelling began with the
development of an ocean-forced iceberg trajectory model (Bigg and Wadley,
1996). An iceberg momentum balance accounts for Coriolis and pressure
gradient forces, plus drag forces from ocean, wind, waves, and sea ice. Along
each trajectory, iceberg mass is reduced according to parameterizations of
basal melting, buoyant convection, and wave erosion. This model has been
extensively used and validated in the Arctic (e.g. Bigg and Wadley, 1996) and
Antarctic (Gladstone et al., 2001), as well as for palaeoclimate studies
(e.g. Watkins et al., 2007).</p>
      <p>The iceberg model was subsequently coupled with the Fine-Resolution Greenland Sea and Labrador Sea (FRUGAL) ocean model,
which features a curvilinear grid system with a North Pole centred in
Greenland, ensuring reasonably high resolution (20–50 km) in the northern
Atlantic and Arctic (Wadley and Bigg, 2000). This coupling allows for
feedback between iceberg meltwater and the surface ocean dynamics and
thermodynamics (Levine and Bigg, 2008). For a given calving flux, a
distribution of icebergs is specified in terms of size, with characteristic
length, width and thickness.</p>
      <p>In separate developments, modified versions of the Bigg and Wadley (1996) and
Bigg et al. (1997) iceberg model have been coupled with the ECBilt-CLIO Earth
System Model (Jongma et al., 2009) and with CM2G, a next-generation GFDL (Geophysical Fluid Dynamics
Laboratory)
climate model, featuring an isopycnal-coordinate ocean component (Martin and
Adcroft, 2010; henceforth MA10). Jongma et al. (2009) found that freshening
and cooling influences of icebergs enhance sea ice area by 12 and 6 %,
respectively. MA10 conversely found that sea ice cover is generally thinner
and less compact with icebergs, compared to a control experiment in which
fresh water enters the ocean at the coast and stimulates sea ice growth. They
found the strongest decreases in sea ice concentration of 6–8 % in the
Amundsen, Bellingshausen, Weddell, and D'Urville seas, i.e. along the major
export routes for icebergs. The reduced freshwater input over continental
shelf regions in experiments with icebergs (in particular, the flux of
“bergy bits”) enhances deep-water formation in CM2G, leading to an increase
of up to 10 % in the production rate of model Antarctic Bottom Water.</p>
      <p>It should be noted that the iceberg mass fluxes and distributions in CM2G –
and the aforementioned impacts – are associated with calving rates, in
balance with precipitation over ice sheets, that are rather different from
observations. We also note that Jongma et al. (2009) distributed Antarctic
runoff globally in the control experiment, in contrast to the control run
with CM2G, which could explain the opposing sea ice trends associated with
the introduction of icebergs to ECBilt-CLIO and CM2G.</p>
      <p>In the present study, a modified version of the Bigg and Wadley (1996) and
Bigg et al. (1997) iceberg model, developed by MA10, is coupled to an
eddy-permitting global implementation of the Nucleus for European Modelling of the Ocean (NEMO) (Madec, 2008), to simulate the
trajectories and melting of calved icebergs – from Antarctica, Greenland, and
small northern ice caps – in the presence of mesoscale variability and
fine-scale dynamical structure. In contrast, both MA10 and Jongma et
al. (2009) included icebergs in models with coarse (non-eddy resolving) ocean
resolution.</p>
      <p>The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In a model description
section (Sect. 2), we provide details of the iceberg module (ICB), NEMO
configuration, NEMO–ICB implementation, specified calving, experimental
design, and diagnostics. In a model validation section (Sect. 3), we consider
first the distribution of icebergs and the associated freshwater flux,
followed by differences, attributed to the inclusion of icebergs, in sea
ice, hydrography, mixed layer depths (MLDs) and ocean currents. In an additional
section (Sect. 4), we describe prototype modifications of NEMO–ICB, in
relation to the baseline configuration used here. In a summary and
discussion section (Sect. 5), we compare and contrast our present results
with observations and previous simulations, before highlighting some caveats
related to physical processes that are yet to be included in coupled
iceberg–ocean models. We conclude with details of code availability.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Model description</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <title>The iceberg module</title>
      <p>The ICB (for ICeBergs) module is based on the original model of
Bigg et al. (1997), as recently adapted for coupling to the CM2G climate
model by MA10. Collections of icebergs are treated as Lagrangian particles,
with the distribution of icebergs by size derived from observations. With
increasing size (e.g. thickness ranging from 40 to 250 m), smaller
collections of icebergs are represented per particle – see Bigg et
al. (1997) and MA10 for full details. The momentum balance for icebergs
comprises the Coriolis force, air and water form drags, the horizontal
pressure gradient force, a wave radiation force, and interaction with sea
ice. The mass balance for an individual iceberg is governed by basal melting,
buoyant convection at the sidewalls, and wave erosion (see Bigg et al.,
1997). All respective equations are the same as detailed in MA10, so are not
repeated here.</p>
      <p>Internal stresses from the sea ice model are not directly used in the iceberg
momentum balance, and similarly there is no feedback from the iceberg motion
to the sea ice. Neglect of the momentum exchange between icebergs and sea ice
is consistent with resolved length scales. The length scale of our biggest
represented icebergs is <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 km, and such icebergs are generally well
dispersed around Antarctica, Greenland, and Arctic ice caps. Only near release
sites will there be a sufficient iceberg density to perhaps impact sea ice
motion, which is determined on model grid scales that are more than 10 times
larger than our largest icebergs. Independent of iceberg concentration, the
impact of sea ice drag on icebergs is observed to be minimal around
80–90 % of the time (Lighey and Hellmer, 2001), so the momentum
interaction term, and any resulting feedback, may be regarded as second
order. Only when the pack is concentrated does this change, and then there is
a switch to the berg being carried by the sea ice. This step change in
iceberg dynamics is not yet parameterized. We also assume that icebergs are
oriented at 45<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> relative to the wind, with the wind to the left
(right) in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) (Southern Hemisphere – SH), as outlined in Bigg et
al. (1997). This may or may not be the case in reality. Thus, any stress
provided from the sea ice model grid is likely to be only approximate. For
these reasons, a simple drag law – as implicit here (Eq. A.2c in MA10)
– is realistic for iceberg interaction with sea ice. For higher-resolution
ocean models, with grid-cell dimensions of just a few kilometres, it would be
necessary to more explicitly account for momentum transfers between icebergs
and sea ice, but the present resolution prohibits such representation.</p>
      <p>Sea ice concentration and thickness can also be impacted by freshwater
fluxes from melting. Given the scale issues mentioned above, but the
spreading of meltwater widely across the surface, one can argue that the
effect of meltwater on these sea ice parameters is likely to be much greater
than the imprecisely represented and resolved dynamical effect.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <title>NEMO version and configuration</title>
      <p>Interactive icebergs are implemented in NEMO v3.5, in a model option known as
NEMO–ICB. The source code and forcing files used in the configurations
presented here are available to registered NEMO users (see “Code availability”). The NEMO
ocean model component is coupled to either the Louvain-la-Neuve sea ice model
(LIM2) with viscous-plastic rheology, formulated by Fichefet and
Maqueda (1997), or the Los Alamos National Laboratory sea ice model
version 4.1 (CICE v4.1; see Hunke and Lipscomb, 2010). After initial NEMO–ICB
development with LIM2 (Marsh et al., 2014), the results presented here are
obtained with NEMO coupled to CICE. While testing of the latest NEMO versions
is ongoing, validation of v3.4 demonstrated substantial improvements in
surface physics over v3.2 (Megann et al., 2014).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <title>NEMO–ICB implementation – baseline and prototype versions</title>
      <p>Implementation of the ICB module within the NEMO framework differs from
implementation of icebergs in the sea ice module of CM2G (MA10). The NEMO–ICB
implementation was motivated by anticipated model development. Icebergs in
the real world – up to 250 m thick in the model – are largely submerged
into the ocean, and therefore influenced by vertical temperature gradients
and current shears. For physically correct model representation of
iceberg–ocean interaction, model icebergs should correspondingly be submerged
in the model ocean – difficult to code within the CM2G scheme.</p>
      <p>The results presented here are obtained for icebergs interacting with surface
currents and surface temperatures – henceforth denoted the baseline version
(for the available code, see “Code availability”). Besides the baseline version of the
code, a number of optional modifications have been implemented and are
currently being tested. In particular, this includes an option for advection
of icebergs with depth-averaged currents, extending the dynamics routines to
3-D settings with minor code changes. Other optional modifications to the
baseline version of the code include iceberg interaction with shallow
bathymetry and computation of melting rates with the 3-D temperature field.
These modifications are further described and discussed in Sect. 4 but are
not yet readily available in the code.</p>
      <p>As icebergs melt, freshwater is added to the surface level of the ocean model
with salinity 0 psu – effectively a frozen fraction of the total runoff in
NEMO, re-distributed – freshening the ocean surface layer. There is no
associated heat flux in the experiment presented here, although the option
exists in NEMO–ICB for meltwater with a nominal temperature of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C to
mix with the ocean. The additional mass flux associated with iceberg melt
also alters the free surface height in NEMO.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <title>Iceberg calving</title>
      <p>Climatological iceberg calving rates are distributed realistically around
coastlines in high latitudes of the NH and SH (as
shown in Fig. 2a of Levine and Bigg, 2008), and the implied calving events
are constant through time. The initial length <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> width ratio for all newly
calved icebergs is 1.5, and size distributions are specified as in MA10.</p>
      <p>The total calving rate specified for Antarctica is 1140 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>,
compared to 1332 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in Gladstone et al. (2001) and
1375 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in Levine and Bigg (2008) – from
1500 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> in the latter study, taking a standard density
for ice, at 0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, of 916.7 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. While giant icebergs are
unrepresented here, their absence does not account for these differences. Our
Antarctic calving rate comprises 51.6 % of total freshwater flux into the
Southern Ocean from Antarctica (2210 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, prescribed as
100 % runoff in the absence of icebergs.</p>
      <p>The mean calving rate in the NH is considerably smaller at
188 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, compared to 206 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (from
225 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in Levine and Bigg (2008). The great majority of
northern hemispheric calving is from the Greenland ice sheet, with minor contributions from
Axel Heiberg Island, Ellesmere Island, Devon Island, Bylot Island, Baffin
Island, Svalbard, Franz Josef Island, Novaya Zemlya, and Severnaya Zemlya.
Around Greenland, the calving rate comprises around 50 % of total
freshwater flux into the North Atlantic from the ice sheet.</p>
      <p>It is noteworthy that our calving rates are derived from a mass balance
calculation of around 2000, before melt and discharge from ice sheets began
to increase significantly. Rignot et al. (2011) report steadily increasing
rates of ice sheet mass discharge (remote sensing of ice motion and
thickness) over 1992–2009, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 630 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for
Greenland, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2140 to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 2300 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for Antarctica.
The partitioning of this discharge between calving and melting (basal melting
of outlet glaciers and ice shelves) is poorly known and undoubtedly changing
rapidly, but it is likely that recent calving rates are substantially higher
than those used to develop earlier climatological rates, and trending
upwards. In summary, our calving rates are conservative in the context of
these ongoing changes, akin to “pre-industrial” estimates. The
oceanographic and sea ice impacts reported here are therefore also likely to
be conservative.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <title>Experimental design</title>
      <p>In common with preceding NEMO development (e.g. Megann et al., 2014), we
undertook 30-year hindcast experiments, here for the period 1976–2005, with
the 0.25<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> resolution (eddy-permitting) global configuration known as
ORCA025. We henceforth refer to corresponding NEMO experiments (without
icebergs) as CONTROL, and NEMO–ICB experiments (with icebergs) as
ICEBERG. In CONTROL, liquid freshwater (runoff) fluxes are prescribed at
coastal grid cells around Antarctica, Greenland, and the smaller icecaps. This
reference run is designed to emphasize the importance of icebergs in
transporting freshwater, and we stress here that most DRAKKAR (see Megann et al., 2014) simulations
with ORCA025 now use “static” 2-D maps of freshwater flux due to icebergs
– e.g. for the Southern Ocean, the map is derived from Silva et al. (2006),
or freshwater from melting icebergs is homogeneously spread south of
60<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S.</p>
      <p>In ICEBERG, runoff around ice sheets is re-partitioned between iceberg
calving and reduced runoff at coastal grid cells (spatially distributed as in
CONTROL), such that the global ocean receives exactly the same freshwater
flux in CONTROL and ICEBERG. Seasonal cycles of runoff are preserved through
small adjustments at selected locations, while iceberg calving is constant
throughout the year. We cannot guarantee that global-mean salinity will
remain the same in both experiments, due to partial dependence of evaporation
on sea surface temperature (SST), and the salinity relaxation scheme of NEMO.
However, these effects on global-mean salinity are found to be very small
(see Sect. 3.3).</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Iceberg diagnostics saved in the standard NEMO tracer files.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="left"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Diagnostic</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Variable name</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Units</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Calving mass input</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">calving</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Calving heat flux</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">calving_heat</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">–</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Melt rate of icebergs <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> bits</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">berg_floating_melt</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Accumulated ice mass by class</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">berg_stored_ice</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Melt rate of icebergs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">berg_melt</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Buoyancy component of iceberg melting</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">berg_buoy_melt</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Erosion component of iceberg melting</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">berg_eros_melt</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Convective component of iceberg melting</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">berg_conv_melt</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Virtual coverage by icebergs</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">berg_virtual_area</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Mass source of bergy bits</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">bits_src</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Melt rate of bergy bits</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">bits_melt</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Bergy bit density field</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">bits_mass</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Iceberg density field</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">berg_mass</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Calving into iceberg class</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">berg_real_calving</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">kg s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

<?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS6">
  <title>Diagnostics</title>
      <p>For a given time interval, the locations and properties of individual
iceberg particles (each representative of varying numbers of icebergs in a
given size class) are saved in a set of files that may be post-processed to
obtain selected distributions and tracks for individual icebergs.</p>
      <p>Integral diagnostics are written to the tracer files of standard NEMO output.
Table 1 lists the full suite of these diagnostics, along with corresponding
variable names and units. Most iceberg diagnostics are 2-D fields on the NEMO
ocean model mesh. Particularly useful instantaneous measures of the iceberg
model include the virtual coverage by icebergs – virtual in the sense that
total grid-cell area is the sum of open water and sea ice, consistent with
the very small fractional area for icebergs in the size categories considered
here. Other important diagnostics are the melt rate of icebergs, in total and
partitioned into three components named in the tracer files as “buoyancy component of iceberg melt
rate” (basal melting); “convective component …” (sidewall melting);
“erosion component …” (wave erosion).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Model evaluation</title>
      <p>We first consider the spin-up of NEMO–ICB in terms of total iceberg volume.
We then illustrate typical near-equilibrium iceberg distributions, based on
year 26–30 (hindcast years 2001–2005) averages. We subsequently examine sea
ice concentration and thickness, hydrography, MLDs, and
preliminary evidence for iceberg influences on the global ocean circulation.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <title>Iceberg distribution and freshwater flux</title>
      <p>Time series of the total mass of icebergs (Fig. 1) indicate that global mass
is dominated by southern hemispheric mass over northern hemispheric
mass, in a ratio of around 4 : 1. We also note more inter-annual variability
in the SH, perhaps expected given the larger long-term mean.
Southern hemispheric mass has equilibrated as early as year 5, while northern hemispheric mass equilibrates more
slowly, due to the prevalence of semi-enclosed basins in the NH compared to
the SH, where icebergs become trapped. It requires some time for the mean
iceberg mass of the Arctic in particular, but also Baffin Bay, to reach
equilibrium. This extends the mean lifetime of northern hemispheric icebergs and delays
equilibration relative to the SH by 10–15 years. Icebergs are more rapidly
exported from the Antarctic Coastal Current (ACoC) to the Southern Ocean, where they
melt relatively quickly, hence the shorter mean lifetime and equilibration
timescale for southern hemispheric icebergs. However, the model does not include giant
icebergs, of which there will always be some resident in the Southern Ocean
(Silva et al., 2006) and which will take much longer to melt. The real ratio
of iceberg mass between the hemispheres is therefore likely to be greater
than in the model.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1"><caption><p>Time series of total iceberg mass (1 Gt <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> tonne <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>12</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg);
southern hemispheric and northern hemispheric iceberg
mass is indicated by the red and blue lines, respectively. Southern hemispheric iceberg mass
north of 66<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S (dashed red line) is shown for comparison
with observations of Tournadre et al. (2012).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f01.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The year 26–30 mean global iceberg mass of 800–1000 Gt is considerably
lower than the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 6000 Gt obtained after 100-year spin-up of CM2G
(MA10). However, as further discussed below, the high global iceberg mass in
CM2G is associated with excessive calving rates in the Pacific sector of
Antarctica (see Fig. 9a in MA10). For southern hemispheric regions where observations are
available, total iceberg mass in NEMO–ICB appears to be realistic:
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 Gt north of 66<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S in the Southern Ocean (dashed red line
in Fig. 1) compares favourably with estimates based on satellite observations
over 2002–2010 (Tournadre et al., 2012, their Figs. 5 and 6).</p>
      <p>Global iceberg mass budgets for NEMO–ICB and CM2G are summarized in Table 2.
Both models are close to a balance between calving and melting, with the
imbalances (net melting) just under 5 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> for both simulations,
corresponding to 0.37 and 0.19 % of the total calving rates in NEMO–ICB
and CM2G, respectively. In spite of adopting the same parameterizations as
MA10, we obtain somewhat different global rates and partitioning (see
Table 2). As in CM2G, wave erosion flux is dominant in NEMO–ICB, but basal
melt flux is less substantial (17.27 % in NEMO–ICB, compared to
29.21 % in CM2G), which may be due to different SST and wind speeds in
the forced ORCA025 run compared to the fully coupled CM2G. Sidewall melting
(buoyant convection) is similarly negligible in both models. For the SH,
averaged over years 26–30, total melting of icebergs is
1128.5 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. This almost exactly balances total Antarctic calving
of 1140 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, and is partitioned as follows: wave erosion of
918.44 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (81.4 % of the total), basal melting of
205.68 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (18.2 %), and sidewall melting of
4.37 Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> (0.4 %).</p>
      <p>Compared to NEMO–ICB, Bigg et al. (1997) noted similar magnitudes and
partitioning in the North Atlantic and Arctic, although a later version of
the model featured enhanced basal melting (Gladstone et al., 2001). We might
expect a greater difference in partitioning between the North Atlantic, dominated
by wave erosion, and the Arctic, where basal melting should be enhanced in
the presence of a relatively warm Atlantic layer (at around 100 m in many
places). However, surface temperatures are used here in the basal melting
parameterization of NEMO–ICB, which may limit basal melting in the Arctic,
where surface temperatures are close to the freezing point during most of the
year. A sensitivity of basal melting rates to temperature is evident in an
experiment using one of our prototype modifications: when melting rates are
computed with the 3-D temperature field (see Sect. 4.3), basal melting in the
Southern Ocean accounts for an increased proportion of the total iceberg
melting rate, from 18.2 to 29.1 %.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Global iceberg mass balances in NEMO–ICB (year 26–30 averages) and
CM2G (100-year averages).</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col2">Fluxes (Gt year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">CM2G</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">NEMO–ICB</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total fluxes</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">calving</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2210.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1327.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">melting</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2214.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1332.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry namest="col1" nameend="col2">Net flux (calving–melting) </oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Components of melt flux</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">wave erosion</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">1550.0  (70.00 %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">1097.1  (82.32 %)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(and % contribution)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">basal melting</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">646.8  (29.21 %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">230.2  (17.27 %)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">sidewall melting</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">17.5  (0.79 %)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">5.5  (0.41 %)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>As an example of simulated iceberg drift patterns, Fig. 2 shows daily iceberg
positions, colour-coded for size class (or thickness), for the two seasons of
year 30 in each hemisphere (see also Fig. S1 in the Supplement for the corresponding number of
icebergs and average iceberg thickness on the ORCA025 grid). Evaluation of
these drift patterns is rather qualitative in the absence of corresponding
observational data (except for giant icebergs), but the southern hemispheric distribution
patterns compare favourably with maps of average probability, length and
volume of icebergs, based on altimetry data (Tournadre et al., 2012, their
Fig. 4).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2"><caption><p>All iceberg positions, colour-coded for size class (or thickness),
for the two seasons of year 30 in each hemisphere: <bold>(a)</bold> SH, January–June; <bold>(b)</bold> SH, July–December; <bold>(c)</bold> NH, January–June; <bold>(d)</bold> NH,
July–December.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In the SH (Fig. 2a, b), large icebergs (thickness <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 200 m) cluster along
most of Antarctica, with smaller icebergs (thickness <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50 m) generally
found farther offshore. Large icebergs spread further equatorward in the
north part of the Weddell Gyre, east of the Antarctic Peninsula to about
30<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E. To a lesser extent, large icebergs also reach the Southern
Ocean in the Indian Ocean sector at around 60<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E, and south of New
Zealand, from around 150 to 180<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E. Icebergs may initially drift
equatorwards due to topographically induced distortions of the ACoC, subsequently following the periphery of subpolar gyres to
reach the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, where they melt rapidly. There is
also a degree of seasonality in iceberg distribution, with more extensive and
equatorward distributions in the austral summer/autumn (January–June),
likely due to the retreat of sea ice and disappearance of an associated drag
force in the iceberg momentum balance.</p>
      <p>In the NH (Fig. 2c, d), highest iceberg concentrations are located to the
west of Greenland, in Nares Strait and Baffin Bay, and north of Greenland and
around Ellesmere Island. The majority of the icebergs follow the Labrador Current and are fully melted within the vicinity of the Grand Banks. As for
the SH, there is a degree of seasonality in iceberg distributions. During
July–December, icebergs are present in large numbers just to the north of
Iceland (while largely absent in January–June), and larger icebergs are
evident in the East and West Greenland currents around Cape Farewell. As
calving rates are constant year round, these differences are due to seasonal
variations in the dynamics and thermodynamics of icebergs.</p>
      <p>For comparison with observations, in the northwest Atlantic we consider
monthly counts of iceberg numbers observed south of 48<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N (see Bigg
et al., 2014a, and references therein), compiled by the United States Coast
Guard since 1913, with earlier reports to the US Hydrographic Service
extending the record back to 1900. This record is characterized by a strong,
and regular, seasonal cycle (see Fig. 2 in Bigg et al., 2014a), with a
pronounced peak in numbers from spring to early summer. Bigg et al. (2014a)
explain this as a combination of seasonal peaks in discharge, a delay effect
from the release of icebergs being trapped in winter sea ice, and varying
travel paths. Considering the iceberg drifts in Fig. 2c and d, we find an annual
total of 40 icebergs south of 48<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N, with 19 (21) recorded as
crossing this latitude during January–June (July–December). This is a
considerably smaller count than the long-term observed annual total of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 400 icebergs (Bigg et al., 2014a), although we note strong
inter-annual variability in the observed record. The near absence of a
seasonal cycle in NEMO–ICB is consistent with our use of a constant calving
rate.</p>
      <p>Figure 3 shows spatial distributions of the total freshwater fluxes due to
iceberg melting, averaged over years 26–30 (upper panels), alongside these
fluxes as fractions of the net freshwater flux (other than iceberg melting)
associated with local imbalances of precipitation and evaporation (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>P</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>),
runoff, and sea ice growth and melt (lower panels). Equatorward of
66<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S in the Southern Ocean, melting patterns (and amplitudes) bear
favourable comparison with estimates based on satellite observations
(Tournadre et al., 2012, their Fig. 16). Notably devoid of substantial
iceberg melting is the sector 60–120<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, consistent with relatively
few calving sites between the Bellingshausen Sea and the tip of the Antarctic
Peninsula, while the ACoC carrying icebergs westward in
this sector is strongly constrained to follow coastal topography and there is
relatively limited offshore transport of icebergs into warmer waters. In the
NH, high melting rates are limited to the periphery of Greenland and the
offshore Labrador Current, with very weak melting rates in the Arctic and
elsewhere.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3"><caption><p>Iceberg total freshwater flux (year 26–30 average): total flux (m year<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> –
upper panels; fractions (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1) of
iceberg freshwater flux to total freshwater input – lower panels.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f03.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>As a fraction of total freshwater input, iceberg melting exceeds 1.0 at many
locations in the coastal zone of Antarctica, and around southern Greenland,
where melting rates are clearly high. The fraction exceeds 0.5 in a broad
southwest Atlantic swathe of the Southern Ocean. The net freshwater flux in
this region is otherwise dominated by precipitation, so we can conclude that
iceberg melting locally reaches around 50 % of the precipitation rate.
MA10 simulate a lower melting rate in this region, consistent with the
location of most iceberg melting closer to Antarctica in CM2G, where the
freshwater flux associated with sea ice melt dominates total freshwater flux
(see Figs. 2a and 10 in MA10). In some regions of NEMO–ICB, iceberg melting
as a fraction of net freshwater flux is negative, as the net freshwater flux
is locally reversed (iceberg melting cannot be negative). This is most
evident in the Weddell Sea and the Ross Sea, associated with local dominance
of sea ice freezing over melting through the seasonal cycle. At some
locations, the ratio exceeds <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1, indicating that iceberg melting dominates
the negative freshwater flux due to sea ice freezing, and there is overall
net freshening.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4"><caption><p>Annual-mean southern hemispheric sea ice concentration averaged for years 26–30, in
ICEBERG (left panel), and ICEBERG minus CONTROL differences (right panel).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f04.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5"><caption><p>As Fig. 4, for sea ice thickness (defined here as the mean ice
thickness of the ice-covered part of a grid cell).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f05.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <title>Impacts on sea ice</title>
      <p>With a focus on southern hemispheric sea ice, we first evaluate CONTROL, with reference to very
similar findings in Megann et al. (2014). Hindcast ORCA025 runs presently
underestimate overall annual mean sea ice thickness around Antarctica by a
moderate 15 % in comparison with the Antarctic Sea Ice Processes and Climate (ASPeCt) data for the period 1996–2005 (Worby et al., 2008). The
seasonal cycle of the sea ice thickness in the model is, however, in good
agreement with these observations: maximum austral summer
(December–February) sea ice thickness of about 1.06 m in the model compares
to 1.02 m in the observations, while minimum austral winter (June–August)
thickness of 0.58 m in the model compares to 0.60 m.</p>
      <p>Comparing model sea ice concentrations in the Southern Ocean with data from
the Hadley Centre Sea Ice and Sea Surface Temperature (HadISST)
observational data set (Rayner et al., 2003), winter sea ice distribution in
hindcast ORCA025 runs is realistic, although summer sea ice concentrations
are somewhat lower than in the data. Lower summer sea ice concentration in
the Southern Ocean is a known bias in most forced models, and is attributed
to regional uncertainties in the reanalysis fields (see discussion in Megann
et al., 2014).</p>
      <p>Icebergs substantially influence sea ice distribution, thickness and total
mass. Changes are most evident in the SH. Figures 4 and 5 show year 26–30
means for ICEBERG, and differences relative to CONTROL, in southern hemispheric sea ice
concentration and thickness. Including icebergs, concentration and thickness
are notably decreased at most locations around Antarctica. In parts of the
eastern Weddell Sea, concentration decreases by up to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % –
e.g. at around 25<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, 70<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, concentration decreases from
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.6 in CONTROL to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 in ICEBERG – with more limited
increases, of up to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 % in the Bellingshausen Sea. At locations
of maximum thickness difference in the eastern Weddell and central Ross seas,
annual-mean thicknesses of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 50–100 cm in CONTROL are reduced by
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 cm in ICEBERG. Conversely, sea ice of thickness <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 cm
thickens by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 cm throughout the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas,
as far as the eastern Ross Sea and along the western Antarctic Peninsula.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6"><caption><p>Changes in the global fields of salinity at selected depth levels
(surface, 163, 508, 1046 m), averaged over years 26–30.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f06.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Considering the combined effect of net reductions in annual-mean
concentration and thickness in the SH, the total mass of sea
ice (averaged over years 26–30) of 4.715 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>15</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> kg in CONTROL
(ICEBERG) is decreased by 2.9 % in ICEBERG. Following the energy budget
of MA10, we take the latent heat of fusion of water
(334 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> J kg<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and consider a notional southern hemispheric sea ice
area of 10<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn>13</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>. The sea ice volume decrease in ICEBERG,
interpreted as a consequence of differences in the annual cycle compared to
CONTROL, thus equates to additional energy uptake of 0.14 W m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>, which
is an order of magnitude smaller than the corresponding uptake in MA10.</p>
      <p>Generally speaking, sea ice concentration and thickness are decreased
(increased) in regions where surface salinity is higher (lower) in ICEBERG
(see Sect. 3.3), consistent with sea ice formation responding to the strength
of the halocline – a direct thermodynamic iceberg influence on sea ice.
Local coincidence of changes of sea ice thickness and concentration also
suggests an indirect effect of icebergs on internal sea ice dynamics, in turn
related to changes in upper ocean stratification. We infer that the presence
of icebergs thus reduces sea ice convergence in much of the Weddell and
Ross seas. In the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas, sea ice drift is westward
(along shore) and divergent (e.g. Holland and Kwok, 2012). In these regions,
icebergs thus appear to reduce the divergence of sea ice transport,
conversely increasing ice thickness and concentration.</p>
      <p>Decreased sea ice concentration and thickness in ICEBERG is consistent with
decreases at most affected grid points in the coupled atmosphere–ocean model
of MA10. In the Greenland/Arctic area, the presence of icebergs leads to only
minor re-distributions of sea ice concentration and thickness (not shown).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <title>Impacts on hydrography</title>
      <p>Figures 6 and 7 show ICEBERG differences, relative to CONTROL, in the global
fields of salinity and potential temperature at selected depth levels
(surface, 163, 508, 1046 m), averaged over years 26–30, thus accounting for
short-term differences associated with transient eddies that are excited by
icebergs. Given the relatively short experiments, an important caveat is that
differences are likely to be less equilibrated as depth increases.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7"><caption><p>As Fig. 6, for potential temperature.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f07.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The most striking hydrographic impact of icebergs is increased surface
salinity at southern high latitudes (Fig. 6). Differences are strongly
positive immediately adjacent to Antarctica (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.2 psu at most
longitudes), where runoff is substantially reduced (in proportion to the
specified calving flux), but salinity differences also exceed 0.05 across
broad swathes of the high-latitude Southern Ocean. Salinity in ICEBERG is
notably increased in regions where annual-mean sea ice concentration and
thickness is strongly reduced (see Figs. 4 and 5). This suggests that
differences in the seasonal cycle of sea ice freezing, export and melting
contribute substantially to the increases of surface salinity in ICEBERG.</p>
      <p>Weaker negative differences are coincident with the locally strong iceberg
melting “plume” to the east of the Antarctica Peninsula, in the Atlantic
sector of the Southern Ocean (see Fig. 3). More distinct negative differences
are coincident with the highest concentration of Greenland icebergs, around
Davis Strait. With increasing depth, negative differences are more evident in
southern high latitudes, and are extensive throughout the Weddell Sea at 508
and 1046 m.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8"><caption><p>Meridional transect along 35<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, showing changes in
salinity (upper panel) and temperature (lower panel), averaged over years 26–30.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Temperature differences are also substantial. At the surface, positive
differences are extensive at southern high latitudes, again coincidental with
differences in sea ice concentration and thickness. A simple explanation is
that surface temperatures are higher due to stronger surface ocean heat gain
where sea ice is thinner and/or absent for more of the year. Large
differences are also evident sub-surface, with widespread negative
differences in the Atlantic and Pacific sectors of the high-latitude Southern
Ocean. In the Weddell Sea, where particularly large negative differences
extend to great depth (e.g. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1000 m), we can conclude that a thin
warmer, more saline layer lies above an otherwise cooler, fresher water
column. This implicit re-partitioning of heat and freshwater is associated
with locally reduced sea ice concentration and thickness.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9"><caption><p>As Fig. 8, at 175<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Substantial salinity and temperature differences are also evident at lower
latitudes, such as in the South Atlantic to at least <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 m, with
broader freshening and cooling of the tropical and subtropical Atlantic at
this depth. At all four selected depth levels, large salinity and temperature
differences are also evident near strong currents such as the Antarctic
Circumpolar Current, and western boundary currents such as the Gulf Stream
and Kuroshio. We show in Sect. 3.5 that such differences are also associated
with changes in ocean currents.</p>
      <p>Informed by differences on selected levels in Figs. 6 and 7, in Figs. 8 and 9
we show salinity and temperature differences along selected meridional
transects, at 35<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W and 175<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E (see also Figs. S2–S5 in the Supplement for
transects with an expanded vertical scale in the upper 1000 m). In both
Figs. 8 and 9, the deepest extent of negative salinity and temperature
differences is clearly located at high southern latitudes. In the Weddell Sea
of ICEBERG, negative differences of up to 0.01 psu – below 100–200 m –
extend to around 2000 m. In Fig. 8, it is evident that Antarctic Intermediate Water (AAIW)
in ICEBERG is fresher by up to 0.01 (around 40<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 1300 m). This fresh signal may
be traced back to the region of iceberg melting east of the Antarctic
Peninsula, and may be a transient signal of locally more dominant iceberg
melting earlier in the hindcast, noting that the positive surface salinity
differences progressively spread northward from the coastal zone of
Antarctica over years 21–30 (not shown).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10"><caption><p>Area-averaged <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>/<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> diagrams representative of the Weddell Sea
(50–70<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 15–55<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W; upper panel) and the
Ross Sea (50–70<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, 172<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E–137<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W; lower panel), for ICEBERG (red points) and CONTROL (blue
points).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f10.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>To show how temperature and salinity change in relation to density, for
selected regions where iceberg influences are strongest, Fig. 10 shows
area-averaged <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>–<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>S</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (temperature–salinity) diagrams for the Ross Sea/Pacific and Weddell
Sea/Atlantic sectors (both south of 50<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, excluding all grid points
near the coast). An overall impression (upper panels) is that ICEBERG
salinities (red points) are mostly shifted to lower salinity below around
300 m, by up to 0.01 psu relative to CONTROL salinities (blue points).
Area-averaged differences are generally not temperature compensated at upper
levels (above <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 m), leading to ICEBERG density increases (shifts
across isopycnals) on depth levels in the upper 500 m, reaching maxima of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.015 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> at <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 100 m and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.030 kg m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
at 5 m, in the Weddell Sea and Ross Sea, respectively. Below <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 1000 m,
changes of salinity and temperature are very close to density compensating,
although there are, on average, slight density decreases in ICEBERG at around
4000 m in the Weddell Sea and at around 500 m in the Ross Sea.
These density changes will potentially influence dense water formation and
the global abyssal circulation in a longer simulation.</p>
      <p>Averaged over years 26–30, global volume-averaged salinity is 0.00025 psu
higher in ICEBERG compared to CONTROL, while for the Antarctic region (south
of 50<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S), volume-averaged salinity is 0.0015 psu higher
in ICEBERG. By contrast, in the North Atlantic (north of 50<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> N)
volume-averaged salinity is around 0.0010 lower in ICEBERG. These very small
differences are within the inter-annual variations of global-mean and
regional-mean salinity, and confirm that the prescribed freshwater fluxes in
CONTROL and ICEBERG are identical.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <title>Impacts on mixed layer depth</title>
      <p>Related to their widespread impact on the seasonal evolution of salinity and
temperature, icebergs exert an influence on end-of-winter MLDs. Figures 11 and 12 show global fields of average March and September
MLD, in ICEBERG and the difference from CONTROL, averaged over years 26–30.
In March (Fig. 11), areas of greatest MLD (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 500 m) in the North Atlantic
are generally shallower in ICEBERG by up to 100 m (purple shading in
Fig. 11b), notably in the central Labrador Sea, and in patches north and
south of Iceland. Conversely, in the western subtropics of the North Pacific,
MLDs of up to 250 m in ICEBERG are in many places around 25 m deeper than
in CONTROL.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11"><caption><p>Mixed layer depth in March (year 26–30 average): <bold>(a)</bold> ICEBERG;
<bold>(b)</bold> ICEBERG minus CONTROL.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f11.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>In September (Fig. 12), deep mixed layers in the Pacific sector of the
Southern Ocean are most strongly affected by icebergs. From 180<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> E to
around 90<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> W, in the zone 50–65<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S, ICEBERG MLDs in the
range 200–400 m are generally deeper than those in CONTROL, by around 50 m
at many locations. This can be related to hydrographic changes. North of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 60<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> S in the Southern Ocean, we conjecture that increased
surface salinity in ICEBERG (see Fig. 6) is mostly driven by the weaker
re-distribution of freshwater by sea ice, which is a first-order mechanism for
transporting freshwater northward in the Southern Ocean and contributes to
the fresh signature of AAIW. In ICEBERG,
reductions in sea ice concentration and thickness (Figs. 4 and 5) are indicative
of reduced northward transport of (thinner) sea ice, with sea ice melting
shifted southward. This appears to have a large impact on subducting AAIW
properties (see Fig. 8) and local MLD, as outlined above. We
also note substantial changes close to Antarctica, notably in the western
sectors of the Weddell and Ross seas, where MLDs of 100–200 m in ICEBERG
are up to 50 m shallower than in CONTROL.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F12"><caption><p>Mixed layer depth in September (year 26–30 average): <bold>(a)</bold> ICEBERG;
<bold>(b)</bold> ICEBERG minus CONTROL.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f12.pdf"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS5">
  <title>Impacts on ocean currents</title>
      <p>To quantify the mean strength of ocean currents, we take the time average of
kinetic energy (KE), here simply defined as (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>v</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>u</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>v</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> are the zonal and meridional components of the ocean current, at selected
depths. The difference of KE is calculated from currents averaged
over years 26–30 in ICEBERG relative to CONTROL (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>KE), and shown in
Fig. 13 at three levels, 61, 163 and 508 m (the deeper levels coincident
with levels chosen to show property changes).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F13"><caption><p>Differences (ICEBERG minus CONTROL) in the year 26–30 time
average of kinetic energy (KE) at <bold>(a)</bold> 61 m; <bold>(b)</bold> 163 m; <bold>(c)</bold> 508 m.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=236.157874pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://www.geosci-model-dev.net/8/1547/2015/gmd-8-1547-2015-f13.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Starting in the region most directly impacted by re-partitioning of
freshwater fluxes, we find negative near-surface <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>KE values at all
depths of the ACoC that skirts Antarctica,
particularly in the Atlantic sector. This indicates a weaker baroclinic
component of the ACoC in ICEBERG, due to changes in the cross-shelf density
gradients (low to high density moving cross shelf) that drive an eastward
flow component of the ACoC via the thermal wind balance (Núñez-Riboni
and Fahrbach, 2009, 2010). The ACoC is a primarily wind-driven westward
current (Hayakawa et al., 2012), so the thermal wind component in ICEBERG
more strongly opposes the largely unchanged westward component. We note that
wind forcing can possibly increase with reduced sea ice concentration, but
this effect is likely to be small. The stronger thermal wind would be
consistent with particularly strong offshore cooling at, e.g. 163 and 508 m,
indicated in Fig. 7.</p>
      <p>More remote from Antarctica, we find high near-surface <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>KE values in
the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, associated in particular with major
topographic features near South America and South Africa. Substantial <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>KE values are also evident further afield, in equatorial regions, and
aligned with the cores of the separated boundary currents (up to
0.05 m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> – notably the Gulf Stream and Kuroshio currents.
The substantial and coherent area of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>KE in the Kuroshio, persistent
over the 5-year averaging period, corresponds to an increase in the central
meandering jet, and a decrease in the south part of this jet.</p>
      <p>A more detailed view of the Gulf Stream region is provided in Fig. S6 in the Supplement. The
spatial structure of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>KE is coherent with depth, between the surface
and 200–300 m, but differences rapidly decline below 300 m. Temperature
differences averaged over years 26–30 (see Fig. 7) are spatially coherent on
large scales in the vicinity of boundary currents. For example, considering
negative differences in excess of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, a substantial cold
anomaly is apparent to the north of the Gulf Stream at 508 m. We conclude
here that property differences throughout the global ocean are to an extent
associated with systematic changes in ocean currents. In the relatively short
simulations here, these remote changes (in properties and currents) must be
excited by rapid propagation of density anomalies from high to low latitudes,
a mechanism discussed briefly in Sect. 5.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Prototype modifications of NEMO–ICB</title>
      <p>While we have focused so far on a baseline simulation with NEMO–ICB,
three modifications of the iceberg model have been most recently
implemented and are currently being tested in a slightly different
ORCA025 configuration. These modifications will possibly be included in
future code releases and are therefore only briefly described and
discussed below.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Advection of icebergs with vertically integrated ocean velocity</title>
      <p>Icebergs in the real world are influenced by the vertical shear of ocean
currents. In particular, Ekman drift is suspected to affect iceberg
trajectory. In a first modification of the baseline code, the depth-averaged
ocean velocity is used in place of surface currents for advecting icebergs.
In practice, the ocean velocity value used by the iceberg dynamics solver
corresponds to the depth-averaged ocean velocity between the surface and the
deepest tracer grid-point reached by the iceberg. Preliminary results
suggest that iceberg trajectories are sensitive to this modification.
Iceberg movements are locally less erratic, being less affected by high-frequency fluctuations of surface currents and winds. The large-scale
distribution of icebergs, especially in the Southern Ocean, also appears to
be affected by this modification.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Iceberg interaction with shallow bathymetry</title>
      <p>The thickness of bigger icebergs in the model is not negligible in comparison
to the bathymetry of several coastal regions in the ORCA025 configuration. Is
also known that big icebergs can get stuck on shallow bathymetry around
Antarctica, where they stay for long periods of time before moving
northwards. Furthermore, using depth-integrated currents for advecting icebergs
also requires accounting for how icebergs interact with shallow bathymetry
(where depth-averaged currents can be ill-defined). Fully accommodating this
interaction with shallow bathymetry in the iceberg model could be complicated
and computationally expensive. Indeed, in the model, Lagrangian particles
represent a collection of icebergs with identical parameters, but physically
we do not expect the bathymetry to “stock” more than one iceberg at the
same time. We therefore tested two simpler options for handling iceberg
interaction with shallow bathymetry, although comparison with observations
remains largely qualitative. These options are outlined as follows:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p>Option A: shallow bathymetry points are considered as islands. With
this modification, icebergs tend to travel around shallow regions, or
eventually get stuck when no escape is possible, until melting enough to
cross the shallow region.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>Option B: icebergs proceed across shallow bathymetry, even if their thickness
exceeds the local depth. In this case, the iceberg drift velocity is computed
from depth-averaged ocean currents (see Sect. 4.1), which now include masked
values (zero currents) at model depth levels below the seabed. With this
choice, icebergs are slowed down over shallow bathymetry but can still
transit through shallow regions.</p></list-item></list>
Preliminary results suggest that the differences between the two options
appear not globally very important in the long term, but further work and
longer simulations are needed. However, we see more remarkable differences
of individual trajectories close to coastal areas.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <?xmltex \opttitle{Melting rates computed with the 3-D\hack{\break} temperature field}?><title>Melting rates computed with the 3-D<?xmltex \hack{\break}?> temperature field</title>
      <p>To further resolve vertical physics in the model, we are also testing
modifications for computing melting rates from the 3-D ocean temperature
field. All three components of melt rate in the baseline version of ICB
depend on surface temperature, and are reconsidered/modified accordingly:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p>Basal melting: in our 3-D modification, we consider instead the temperature
at the maximal depth reached for each iceberg.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>Buoyant convection at the sidewalls: this is a quadratic temperature-dependent
function; in our 3-D modification, this function is integrated between the
surface and the maximum depth of each iceberg.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>Wave erosion: this depends only on surface temperature; hence, we do not
modify this component.</p></list-item></list>
In the few cases when icebergs are at a grid point where bathymetry is
shallower than the iceberg thickness, the temperature considered for the
part of iceberg that is deeper than bathymetry takes the value of the
deepest ocean point.</p>
      <p>Preliminary results show that, overall, this modification leads to a slightly
higher global melt rate. In the Southern Ocean, this happens mostly during
the boreal autumn and winter months (from April to September) when icebergs
start transiting across the Weddell and Ross seas. Icebergs therefore tend to
melt faster which leads to shorter trajectories downstream in the northern
Weddell and Ross seas. Incidentally, with 3-D temperature, icebergs are also
less sensitive to some surface warm biases that may appear related to the
stronger stratification induced by iceberg melting, but further analysis is
required for more robust conclusions about this modification.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Summary and discussion</title>
      <p>We have included icebergs interactively in an eddy-permitting global
configuration of the ocean model NEMO, the first time that icebergs have been
implemented at this resolution. Simulated iceberg distributions and
freshwater fluxes are in reasonable agreement with limited available
observations, in the northwest Atlantic (Bigg et al., 2014a, and references
therein) and in the Southern Ocean (Tournadre et al., 2012).</p>
      <p>Freshwater forcing due to iceberg melting is most pronounced very locally, in
the coastal zone around much of Antarctica, where it often exceeds in
magnitude and opposes the negative freshwater fluxes associated with sea ice
freezing. However, at most locations in the polar Southern Ocean, the
annual-mean freshwater flux due to icebergs, if present, is typically an
order of magnitude smaller than the contribution of sea ice and
precipitation. A notable exception is the southwest Atlantic sector of the
Southern Ocean, where iceberg melting reaches around 50 % of net
precipitation over a large area. Including icebergs, sea ice concentration
and thickness are notably decreased at most locations around Antarctica, by
up to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 20 % in the eastern Weddell Sea, with more limited
increases, of up to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 10 %, in the Bellingshausen Sea. Antarctic sea
ice mass decreases by 2.9 %, overall.</p>
      <p>As a consequence of changes in net freshwater forcing and sea ice, salinity
and temperature distributions are also substantially altered. Surface
salinity increases by <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.1 psu around much of Antarctica, due to
suppressed coastal runoff, with extensive freshening at depth, extending to
greatest depths in the high-latitude Southern Ocean where discernible effects
on both salinity and temperature reach 2500 m in the Weddell Sea by the last
pentad of the simulation.</p>
      <p>Our choice of reference run (CONTROL) has considerable bearing on the present
results. Most DRAKKAR simulations with ORCA025 now use static 2-D maps of
freshwater flux due to melting icebergs. Further experiments and analysis
would be necessary to establish the impact of interactive icebergs on the
model ocean, in contrast to implicit iceberg melting. A step in this
direction is to preserve runoff rates around the ice sheets and ice caps. In
a shorter sensitivity experiment, ICEBERG2, we re-ran the first 10 years of
the hindcast with calved icebergs as in ICEBERG and runoff as in CONTROL. The
icebergs in ICEBERG2 thus provide an additional freshwater flux, and the
Southern Ocean (in particular) consequently freshens almost everywhere. Such
an experiment provides the preliminary basis for investigating the
sensitivity of the ocean to ice sheet mass imbalance.</p>
      <p>Coherent patterns of difference in salinity and temperature develop
throughout the global ocean, and ocean currents are systematically altered.
Perturbations in the high-latitude density field, associated with icebergs,
will propagate around the globe as Rossby and Kelvin waves. Previous model
studies have shown the importance of wave-like mechanisms for communication
between Antarctic and equatorial regions (e.g. Atkinson et al., 2009). In
such studies, salinity anomalies in the Southern Ocean excite fast
westward-propagating barotropic planetary waves (Gill, 1982), which propagate
to the western boundary of the South Pacific. On arrival at the western
boundary, these Rossby waves excite baroclinic Kelvin waves, which propagate
more slowly to, and then along, the Equator. However, the perturbations
applied in previous model studies were artificial, involving large and
sustained changes in salinity over substantial portions of the Southern
Ocean. In contrast to these studies, salinity and temperature differences
between ICEBERG and CONTROL can be regarded as fluctuations that are more
naturally associated with melting icebergs. It is also possible for the
density anomalies associated with iceberg melting to directly generate
baroclinic planetary waves, which can propagate similar distances, much more
slowly, but with potentially larger amplitude. In conclusion, more
experiments for longer periods of time are needed to better understand slower
variability of the system, and the various ocean teleconnections associated
with variable iceberg calving and melting.</p>
      <p>In the context of NEMO development and evaluation, the effects of icebergs on
surface property fields and mixed layer depths (MLDs) are noteworthy. Megann
et al. (2014) evaluate a similar 30-year hindcast using a global
eddy-permitting configuration of NEMO v3.4. Over large areas of the world oceans, SST and surface salinity errors (Fig. 1 in
Megann et al., 2014) exceed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.25 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.1 psu
respectively, with SST biases of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C near Greenland. Based on
the SST differences in Fig. 7, we suggest that the inclusion of icebergs
could substantially reduce SST errors in mid- and high latitudes of the North
Atlantic, although errors may be exacerbated elsewhere. Maximum MLDs in the
NEMO v3.4 hindcast (Fig. 2 in Megann et al., 2014) are generally excessive.
In particular, very deep mixing in the eastern Weddell Sea is regarded as
unrealistic, related to reduced sea ice extent in this region. While this
feature is largely absent in both CONTROL and ICEBERG, at least within the
short hindcast, the inclusion of icebergs may further improve realism in the
subpolar North Atlantic, where we find reductions in end-of-winter MLDs of
the order of 10 %.</p>
      <p>The baseline representation of icebergs has been extended to represent
iceberg interactions with shallow topography, and to use 3-D velocity and
temperature fields to force iceberg drift and melt. We are, however, not yet
vertically resolving the iceberg melting rates. Given that the size of our
maximum iceberg is much less than even the ORCA025 resolution, and that
buoyant plumes from iceberg basal and sidewall melting are expected to rise
quickly to the surface within a few hundred metres, applying these fluxes to
the surface is inherently reasonable at current model resolutions. Large
icebergs may exert a more remote influence on hydrography, at distances of up
to several 10s of kilometres (Stephenson et al., 2011). Melting at sufficient depth
may lead to the entrainment and upwelling of relatively warm and salty
Circumpolar Deep Water around large icebergs in the Southern Ocean (Jenkins,
1999). Stephenson et al. (2011) report observations of the corresponding
alternative ways that ice meltwater disperses from a large tabular iceberg in
the northern Weddell Sea: turbulent entrainment, localized near the iceberg,
as well as
wider horizontal dispersal due to double diffusive processes, as originally
demonstrated in pioneering laboratory experiments (Huppert and Turner, 1980).
Representation of large icebergs and these associated processes is currently
beyond the capability of NEMO–ICB.</p>
      <p>More feasible is the development of iceberg interaction with sea ice. At high
sea ice concentration, icebergs tend to drift with the sea ice (Lighey and
Hellmer, 2001). However, trajectories for individual giant icebergs (e.g.
B31 over the austral winter of 2014 – see Bigg et al., 2014b) indicate that
this only holds when the icebergs are frozen in to thick pack (essentially
land-fast ice), rather than in the extensive areas where lead formation is
common. More generally, we anticipate a maximum in the velocity of icebergs
moved by sea ice, proportional to sea ice thickness and inversely
proportional to iceberg draft (Morison and Goldberg, 2012). For sea ice
moving at velocities higher than this maximum, sea ice ridging is expected,
amounting to a dynamical feedback of icebergs on sea ice. In ongoing work, we
have implemented solutions proposed by Hunke and Comeau (2011), and initial
findings are that iceberg trajectories are sensitive to these changes.</p>
      <p>Finally, NEMO–ICB may be used with a parameterization of ice shelf cavity
melting, to more realistically represent rapidly changing mass fluxes from
Antarctica to the surrounding ocean. This combined capability should underpin
experiments with enhanced calving and melting rates that eventually supplant
current state-of-the-art protocols for freshwater forcing (van den Berk and
Drijfhout, 2014). In the longer term, it would be desirable for ocean models
with this capability to be included in future experimental activities of the
Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Code availability</title>
      <p>NEMO–ICB is available via the NEMO home page, where new users can register
via <uri>http://www.nemo-ocean.eu/user/register</uri>. Registered users can access
the ICB modules at
<uri>https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser#trunk/NEMOGCM/NEMO/OPA_SRC/ICB</uri></p>
      <p>ICB comprises the following modules:
<list list-type="bullet"><list-item>
      <p>icb_oce.F90 – declares variables for iceberg tracking</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icbclv.F90 – calving routines for iceberg calving</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icbdia.F90 – initializes variables for iceberg budgets and diagnostics</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icbdyn.F90 – time stepping routine for iceberg tracking</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icbini.F90 – initializes variables for iceberg tracking</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icblbc.F90 – routines to handle boundary exchanges for icebergs</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icbrst.F90 – reads and writes iceberg restart files</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icbstp.F90 – initializes variables for iceberg tracking</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icbthm.F90 – thermodynamics routines for icebergs</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icbtrj.F90 – trajectory I/O routines</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p>icbutl.F90 – various iceberg utility routines.</p></list-item></list></p>
      <p>Default iceberg parameters are specified at
<uri>https://forge.ipsl.jussieu.fr/nemo/browser/trunk/NEMOGCM/CONFIG/SHARED/namelist_ref</uri></p>
      <p>When compiling NEMO–ICB, the flag ln_icebergs in this namelist file is set
to .true.</p>
</sec>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p><bold>The Supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1547-2015-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">doi:10.5194/gmd-8-1547-2015-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</bold></p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>We thank Torge Martin and Alistair Adcroft for providing their code as a
basis for the ICB module. Funding to couple NEMO with the icebergs module was
provided by the UK Natural Environment Research Council (grant number
NE/H021396/1) for the project “A century of variability in Greenland melting
and iceberg calving”. We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers and the
topic editor for a wide range of helpful comments and
insights.<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?> Edited by: D. Goldberg</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Atkinson, C. P., Wells, N. C., Blaker, A. T., Sinha, B., and Ivchenko, V.
O.: Rapid ocean wave teleconnections linking Antarctic sea salinity anomalies
to the equatorial ocean-atmosphere system, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L08603,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036976" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008GL036976</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Bigg, G. R. and Wadley, M. R.: Prediction of iceberg trajectories for the
North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, Geophys. Res. Lett., 23, 3587–3590, 1996.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Bigg, G. R., Wadley, M. R., Stevens, D. P., and Johnson, J. A.: Modelling
dynamics and thermodynamics of icebergs, Cold Reg. Sci. Technol., 26,
113–135, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Bigg, G. R., Wei, H. L., Wilton, D. J., Zhao, Y., Billings, S. A., Hanna,
E., and Kadirkamanathan, V.: A century of variation in the dependence of
Greenland iceberg calving on ice sheet surface mass balance and regional
climate change, P. R. Soc. A, 470, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2013.0662" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1098/rspa.2013.0662</ext-link>, 2014a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Bigg, G. R., Marsh, R., Wilton, D., and Ivchenko, V. O.: B31 – a giant
iceberg in the Southern Ocean, Ocean Challenge, 20, 32–34, 2014b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Fichefet, T. and Maqueda, M. A.: Sensitivity of a global sea ice model to
the treatment of ice thermodynamics and dynamics, J. Geophys. Res., 102,
12609–12646, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Gill, A. E.: Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics, Academic Press, 662 pp., 1982.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Gladstone, R., Bigg, G. R., and Nicholls, K.: Iceberg trajectory modeling
and meltwater injection in the Southern Ocean, J. Geophys. Res., 106,
19903–19915, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Hayakawa, H., Shibuya, K., Aoyama, Y., Nogi, Y., and Doi, K.: Ocean bottom
pressure variability in the Antarctic Divergence Zone off Lützow-Holm
Bay, East Antarctica, Deep-Sea Res. Pt. I, 60, 22–31, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Holland, P. R. and Kwok, R.: Wind-driven trends in Antarctic sea-ice
drift, Nat. Geosci., 5, 872–875, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo1627" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/ngeo1627</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Hunke, E. C. and Comeau, D.: Sea ice and iceberg dynamic interaction, J.
Geophys. Res., 116, C05008, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010JC006588" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010JC006588</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>Hunke, E. C. and Lipscomb, W. H.: CICE: The Los Alamos Sea Ice Model,
Documentation and Software User's Manual, Version 4.1, Tech. Rep.
LA-CC-06-012, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico,
available at: <uri>http://oceans11.lanl.gov/trac/CICE</uri> (last access: 13 May 2015), 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Huppert, H. E. and Turner, J. S.: Ice blocks melting into a salinity
gradient, J. Fluid. Mech., 100, 367–384, 1980.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Jenkins, A.: The impact of melting ice on ocean waters, J. Phys. Ocean., 29,
2370–2381, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Jongma, J. I., Driesschaert, E., Fichefet, T., Goosse, H., and Renssen, H.:
The effect of dynamic–thermodynamic icebergs on the Southern Ocean climate
in a three-dimensional model, Ocean Model., 26, 104–113, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Levine, R. C. and Bigg, G. R.: The sensitivity of the glacial ocean to
Heinrich events from different sources, as modeled by a coupled
atmosphere-iceberg-ocean model, Paleoceanography, 23, PA4213,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2008PA001613" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008PA001613</ext-link>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Lighey, C. and Hellmer, H. H.: Modeling giant-iceberg drift under the
influence of sea ice in the Weddell Sea, Antarctica, J. Glaciol., 47,
452–460, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Madec, G.: “NEMO ocean engine”. Note du Pole de modélisation, Institut
Pierre-Simon Laplace (IPSL), France, No. 27 ISSN No 1288-1619, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Marsh, R., Ivchenko, V. O., Skliris, N., Alderson, S., Bigg, G. R., Madec,
G., Blaker, A., and Aksenov, Y.: NEMO-ICB (v1.0): interactive icebergs in the
NEMO ocean model globally configured at coarse and eddy-permitting
resolution, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., 7, 5661–5698,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmdd-7-5661-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmdd-7-5661-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Martin, T. and Adcroft, A.: Parameterizing the fresh-water flux from land
ice to ocean with interactive icebergs in a coupled climate model, Ocean
Model., 34, 111–124, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Megann, A., Storkey, D., Aksenov, Y., Alderson, S., Calvert, D., Graham, T.,
Hyder, P., Siddorn, J., and Sinha, B.: GO5.0: the joint NERC-Met Office NEMO
global ocean model for use in coupled and forced applications, Geosci. Model
Dev., 7, 1069–1092, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-7-1069-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/gmd-7-1069-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Morison, J. and Goldberg, D.: A brief study of the force balance between a
small iceberg, the ocean, sea ice, and atmosphere in the Weddell Sea, Cold
Reg. Sci. Technol., 76–77, 69–76, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Núñez-Riboni, I. and Fahrbach, E.: Seasonal variability of the
Antarctic Coastal Current and its driving mechanisms in the Weddell Sea,
Deep-Sea Res. Pt. I, 56, 1927–1941, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr.2009.06.005" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.dsr.2009.06.005</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Núñez-Riboni, I. and Fahrbach, E.: An observation of the banded
structure of the Antarctic Coastal Current at the prime meridian, Polar Res.,
29, 322–329, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-8369.2010.00166.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1751-8369.2010.00166.x</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Rayner, N. A., Parker, D. E., Horton, E. B., Folland, C. K., Alexander, L.
V., Rowell, D. P., Kent, E. C., and Kaplan, A.: Global analyses of sea
surface temperature, sea ice, and night marine air temperature since the late
nineteenth century, J. Geophys. Res., 108, 4407, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2002JD002670" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2002JD002670</ext-link>,
2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Rignot, E., Velicogna, I., van der Broeke, M. R., Monaghan, A., and
Lenaerts, J.: Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic
ice sheets to sea level rise. Geophys. Res. Lett., 38, L05503,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011GL046583" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011GL046583</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Silva, T. A. M., Bigg, G. R., and Nicholls, K. W.: The contribution of giant
icebergs to the Southern Ocean freshwater flux, J. Geophys. Res., 111,
C03004, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004JC002843" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004JC002843</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Stephenson, G. R., Sprintall, J., Gille, S. T., Vernet, M., Helly, J. J.,
Kaufmann, R. S.: Subsurface melting of a free-floating Antarctic iceberg,
Deep-Sea Res. Pt. II, 58, 1336–1345, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.11.009" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.dsr2.2010.11.009</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Tournadre, J., Girard-Ardhuin, F., and Legrésy, B.: Antarctic icebergs
distributions, 2002–2010, J. Geophys. Res., 117, C05004,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011JC007441" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011JC007441</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>van den Berk, J. and Drijfhout, S. S.: A realistic freshwater forcing
protocol for ocean-coupled climate models, Ocean Model., 81, 36–48,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.07.003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ocemod.2014.07.003</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Wadley, M. R. and Bigg, G. R.: Implementation of variable time stepping in
an ocean general circulation model, Ocean Model., 1, 71–80, 2000.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Watkins, S. J., Maher, B. A., and Bigg, G. R.: Ocean circulation at the Last
Glacial Maximum: a combined modelling and magnetic proxy-based study,
Paleoceanogr., 22, PA2204, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006PA001281" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006PA001281</ext-link>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Worby, A. P., Geiger, C. A., Paget, M. J., van Woert, M. L., Ackley, S. F.,
and DeLiberty, T. L.: Thickness distribution of Antarctic sea ice, J.
Geophys. Res., 113, C05S92, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007JC004254" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007JC004254</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    </article>
