南极冰架同时期空中测高和冰厚测量的比较

IF 2.8 3区 地球科学 Q2 GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL Journal of Glaciology Pub Date : 2023-08-03 DOI:10.1017/jog.2023.49
Allison M. Chartrand, I. Howat
{"title":"南极冰架同时期空中测高和冰厚测量的比较","authors":"Allison M. Chartrand, I. Howat","doi":"10.1017/jog.2023.49","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Estimates of ice shelf mass loss are typically based on surface height measurements, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium and estimated firn thickness. Recent investigations, however, challenge the assumption that ice shelves are freely floating, particularly in proximity to narrow structures such as basal channels and shear margins. We compare contemporaneous measurements of Antarctic ice shelf thickness, from ice-penetrating radar, to freeboard height, from laser altimetry, acquired during multiple airborne surveys. On average, the hydrostatic thickness differs from observed thickness by at least ~17 ± 98 m, but this difference varies well beyond the propagated error within and among ice shelves, and depends on the corrections applied. We find that uncertainty in firn thickness can account for most, but not all, of the imbalance. Overall, errors in hydrostatic thickness do not significantly impact estimated basal melt rates. Our results indicate that localized approaches to estimating ice shelf thickness and rates of change are not applicable at large scales, and vice versa, and point to the need for more abundant and accurate firn and ice thickness measurements to improve estimates and predictions of ice shelf mass loss.","PeriodicalId":15981,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Glaciology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves\",\"authors\":\"Allison M. Chartrand, I. Howat\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jog.2023.49\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Estimates of ice shelf mass loss are typically based on surface height measurements, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium and estimated firn thickness. Recent investigations, however, challenge the assumption that ice shelves are freely floating, particularly in proximity to narrow structures such as basal channels and shear margins. We compare contemporaneous measurements of Antarctic ice shelf thickness, from ice-penetrating radar, to freeboard height, from laser altimetry, acquired during multiple airborne surveys. On average, the hydrostatic thickness differs from observed thickness by at least ~17 ± 98 m, but this difference varies well beyond the propagated error within and among ice shelves, and depends on the corrections applied. We find that uncertainty in firn thickness can account for most, but not all, of the imbalance. Overall, errors in hydrostatic thickness do not significantly impact estimated basal melt rates. Our results indicate that localized approaches to estimating ice shelf thickness and rates of change are not applicable at large scales, and vice versa, and point to the need for more abundant and accurate firn and ice thickness measurements to improve estimates and predictions of ice shelf mass loss.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Glaciology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Glaciology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"89\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"地球科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Glaciology","FirstCategoryId":"89","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"地球科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY, PHYSICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

冰架质量损失的估计通常基于表面高度测量,假设流体静力平衡和估计的冷杉厚度。然而,最近的调查挑战了冰架自由漂浮的假设,特别是在狭窄结构(如基底通道和剪切边缘)附近。我们比较了在多次航空调查中获得的南极冰架厚度的同期测量值,从探冰雷达到干舷高度,从激光测高。平均而言,静水压厚度与观测到的厚度相差至少~17±98 m,但这种差异远远超出了冰架内部和冰架之间的传播误差,并取决于所应用的校正。我们发现,冷杉厚度的不确定性可以解释这种不平衡的大部分,但不是全部。总体而言,静水压厚度的误差不会显著影响估计的基本熔体速率。我们的研究结果表明,估计冰架厚度和变化率的局部方法不适用于大尺度,反之亦然,并指出需要更丰富、更准确的firn和冰厚度测量,以改进对冰架质量损失的估计和预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves
Estimates of ice shelf mass loss are typically based on surface height measurements, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium and estimated firn thickness. Recent investigations, however, challenge the assumption that ice shelves are freely floating, particularly in proximity to narrow structures such as basal channels and shear margins. We compare contemporaneous measurements of Antarctic ice shelf thickness, from ice-penetrating radar, to freeboard height, from laser altimetry, acquired during multiple airborne surveys. On average, the hydrostatic thickness differs from observed thickness by at least ~17 ± 98 m, but this difference varies well beyond the propagated error within and among ice shelves, and depends on the corrections applied. We find that uncertainty in firn thickness can account for most, but not all, of the imbalance. Overall, errors in hydrostatic thickness do not significantly impact estimated basal melt rates. Our results indicate that localized approaches to estimating ice shelf thickness and rates of change are not applicable at large scales, and vice versa, and point to the need for more abundant and accurate firn and ice thickness measurements to improve estimates and predictions of ice shelf mass loss.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Glaciology
Journal of Glaciology 地学-地球科学综合
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
14.70%
发文量
101
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Glaciology publishes original scientific articles and letters in any aspect of glaciology- the study of ice. Studies of natural, artificial, and extraterrestrial ice and snow, as well as interactions between ice, snow and the atmospheric, oceanic and subglacial environment are all eligible. They may be based on field work, remote sensing, laboratory investigations, theoretical analysis or numerical modelling, or may report on newly developed glaciological instruments. Subjects covered recently in the Journal have included palaeoclimatology and the chemistry of the atmosphere as revealed in ice cores; theoretical and applied physics and chemistry of ice; the dynamics of glaciers and ice sheets, and changes in their extent and mass under climatic forcing; glacier energy balances at all scales; glacial landforms, and glaciers as geomorphic agents; snow science in all its aspects; ice as a host for surface and subglacial ecosystems; sea ice, icebergs and lake ice; and avalanche dynamics and other glacial hazards to human activity. Studies of permafrost and of ice in the Earth’s atmosphere are also within the domain of the Journal, as are interdisciplinary applications to engineering, biological, and social sciences, and studies in the history of glaciology.
期刊最新文献
Rift propagation signals the last act of the Thwaites Eastern Ice Shelf despite low basal melt rates Implications of high-resolution velocity and strain rate observations for modelling of Greenlandic tidewater glaciers Exploring canyons beneath Devon Ice Cap for sub-glacial drainage using radar and thermodynamic modeling Mechanical properties of pressure-frozen ice under triaxial compressive stress Retreat of the Greenland Ice Sheet leads to divergent patterns of reconfiguration at its freshwater and tidewater margins
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1