Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 332

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

A new glacial isostatic adjustment model for Antarctica: calibrated and tested using observations of relative sea-level change and present-day uplift rates: A new GIA model for Antarctica

Open access
Whitehouse, Pippa L., Bentley, Michael J., Milne, Glenn A., King, Matt A., Thomas, Ian D.·2012·Geophysical Journal International

Abstract

We present a glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) model for Antarctica. This is driven by a new deglaciation history that has been developed using a numerical ice-sheet model, and is constrained to fit observations of past ice extent. We test the sensitivity of the GIA model to uncertainties in the deglaciation history, and seek earth model parameters that minimize the misfit of model predictions to relative sea-level observations from Antarctica. We find that the relative sea-level predictions are fairly insensitive to changes in lithospheric thickness and lower mantle viscosity, but show high sensitivity to changes in upper mantle viscosity and constrain this value (95 per cent confidence) to lie in the range 0.8–2.0 × 1021 Pa s. Significant misfits at several sites may be due to errors in the deglaciation history, or unmodelled effects of lateral variations in Earth structure. When we compare our GIA model predictions with elastic-corrected GPS uplift rates we find that the predicted rates are biased high (weighted mean bias = 1.8 mm yr−1) and there is a weighted root-mean-square (WRMS) error of 2.9 mm yr−1. In particular, our model systematically over-predicts uplift rates in the Antarctica Peninsula, and we attempt to address this by adjusting the Late Holocene loading history in this region, within the bounds of uncertainty of the deglaciation model. Using this adjusted model the weighted mean bias improves from 1.8 to 1.2 mm yr−1, and the WRMS error is reduced to 2.3 mm yr−1, compared with 4.9 mm yr−1 for ICE-5G v1.2 and 5.0 mm yr−1 for IJ05. Finally, we place spatially variable error bars on our GIA uplift rate predictions, taking into account uncertainties in both the deglaciation history and modelled Earth viscosity structure. This work provides a new GIA correction for the GRACE data in Antarctica, thus permitting more accurate constraints to be placed on current ice-mass change.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-246x.2012.05557.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 67 · Cited by 332

Metadata

Authors
Whitehouse, P. L., Bentley, M. J., Milne, G. A., King, M. A., & Thomas, I. D.
Venue
Geophysical Journal International
Published
2012-06-27
Volume
190
Issue
3
Pages
1464-1482
ISSN
0956-540X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2108434249
Cited by
332
References
67
FWCI
16.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A new glacial isostatic adjustment model for Antarctica: calibrated and tested using observations of relative sea-level change and present-day uplift rates: A new GIA model for Antarctica. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2012.05557.x
The paper
Whitehouse, P. L., Bentley, M. J., Milne, G. A., King, M. A., & Thomas, I. D. (2012). A new glacial isostatic adjustment model for Antarctica: calibrated and tested using observations of relative sea-level change and present-day uplift rates: A new GIA model for Antarctica. Geophysical Journal International. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-246x.2012.05557.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.