Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T03:49:13.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A comparison of different ways of dealing with isostasy: examples from modelling the Antarctic ice sheet during the last glacial cycle

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Emmanuel Le Meur
Affiliation:
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et Géophysique de l'Environnement BP 96, Domaine Universitaire, F38402 Saint-Martin-d’Hères Cedex, France
Philippe Huybrechts
Affiliation:
Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Postfach 120161, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The bedrock isostatic response exerts a strong control on ice-sheet dynamics and is therefore always taken into account in ice-sheet models. This paper reviews the various methods normally used in the ice-sheet modelling community to deal with the bedrock response and compares these with a more sophisticated full-Earth model. Each of these bedrock treatments, five in total, is coupled with a three-dimensional thermomechanical ice-sheet model under the same forcing conditions to simulate the Antarctic ice sheet during the last glacial cycle. The outputs of the simulations are compared on the basis of the time-dependent behaviour for the total ice volume and the mean bedrock elevation during the cycle and of the present rate of uplift over Antarctica. This comparison confirms the necessity of accounting for the elastic bending of the lithosphere in order to yield realistic bedrock patterns. It furthermore demonstrates the deficiencies inherent to the diffusion equation in modelling the complex deformation within the mantle. Nevertheless, when characteristic parameters are varied within their range of uncertainty, differences within one single method are often of the same order as those between the various methods. This overview finally attempts to point out the main advantages and drawbacks of each of these methods and to determine which one is most appropriate depending on the specific modelling requirements.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1996
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Deviation from initial steady state for the reference model SGVE. (a) represents the difference in metres between the − ka BP bedrock elevation pattern and that from the reference run, whereas (b) is the same difference but for the present-day state. The expected bedrock rise below the Ronne-Filchner and Ross Ice Shelves is larger than the observed free-water depth in many places, indicating that a substantial part of these ice shelves would be replaced by grounded ice within a few thousand years.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Simulation of the total ice volume (a) and the mean bedrock elevation (b) for the Antarctic ice sheet during the last glacial cycle with the free bedrock parameterizations tested. The mean bedrock elevation is taken here over the entire Antarctic continent for bed elevations of h > −1500 m. An interesting feature to point out in the upper panel is that the deglaciation speed is nearly the same for each of the models.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Simulation of the present-day rate of uplift in cm a−1 over Antarctica for the five bedrock parameterizations. Acronyms are: LL, local lithosphere; EL, elastic lithosphere; RA, relaxed asthenosphere; DA, diffusive asthenosphere. The best agreement with SGVE, the self-gravitating visco-elastic model comes from ELRA with a very similar pattern and very close extreme values.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Sensitivity test on the characteristic parameters for the three most realistic bedrock models: ELDA (a). ELRA (b) and SGVE (c). This demonstrates that, when parameters are varied within their range of uncertainty, the deviations within one method can easily be as much as those obtained from one model to another. Unfortunately, for the present Antarctic ice sheet, there is little observational evidence available to check the validity of the respective results.