Relative importance of the mechanisms triggering the Eurasian ice sheet deglaciation in the GRISLI2.0 ice sheet model

• Published in: Climate of the Past
• Main Authors: Aalderen, Victor, Charbit, Sylvie, Dumas, Christophe, Quiquet, Aurélien
• Format: Text
• Language: English
• Published: 2024
• Subjects: Antarc*; Antarctic; Ice Sheet; Ice Shelf; Ice Shelves
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5194/cp-20-187-2024; https://cp.copernicus.org/articles/20/187/2024/

The last deglaciation (21 to 8 ka) of the Eurasian ice sheet (EIS) is thought to have been responsible for a sea level rise of about 20 m. While many studies have examined the timing and rate of the EIS retreat during this period, many questions remain about the key processes that triggered the EIS deglaciation 21 kyr ago. Due to its large marine-based parts in the Barents–Kara (BKIS) and British Isles sectors, the BKIS is often considered to be a potential analogue of the current West Antarctic ice sheet (WAIS). Identifying the mechanisms that drove the EIS evolution might provide a better understanding of the processes at play in the West Antarctic destabilization. To investigate the relative impact of key drivers on the EIS destabilization, we used the three-dimensional ice sheet model GRISLI (GRenoble Ice Shelf and Land Ice) (version 2.0) forced by climatic fields from five Paleoclimate Modelling Intercomparison Project phases 3 and 4 (PMIP3, PMIP4) Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) simulations. In this study, we performed sensitivity experiments to test the response of the simulated Eurasian ice sheets to surface climate, oceanic temperatures (and thus basal melting under floating ice tongues), and sea level perturbations. Our results highlight that the EIS retreat simulated with the GRISLI model is primarily triggered by atmospheric warming. Increased atmospheric temperatures further amplify the sensitivity of the ice sheets to sub-shelf melting. These results contradict those of previous modelling studies mentioning the central role of basal melting on the deglaciation of the marine-based Barents–Kara ice sheet. However, we argue that the differences with previous works are mainly related to differences in the methodology followed to generate the initial LGM ice sheet. Due to the strong sensitivity of EIS to the atmospheric forcing highlighted with the GRISLI model and the limited extent of the confined ice shelves during the LGM, we conclude by questioning the analogy between EIS and the current WAIS. However, ...