1 / 13

Antarctic ice shelf thicknesses derived from satellite altimetry

Antarctic ice shelf thicknesses derived from satellite altimetry. Jennifer Griggs and Jonathan Bamber Bristol Glaciology Centre, University of Bristol. Motivation. Reducing errors in mass budget estimates Need accurate estimate for modelling studies of shelf and sub-shelf cavity

caine
Download Presentation

Antarctic ice shelf thicknesses derived from satellite altimetry

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Antarctic ice shelf thicknesses derived from satellite altimetry Jennifer Griggs and Jonathan Bamber Bristol Glaciology Centre, University of Bristol

  2. Motivation • Reducing errors in mass budget estimates • Need accurate estimate for modelling studies of shelf and sub-shelf cavity • Initially completed case study for Larsen C • GRL paper in press (Griggs, J.A. and J.L. Bamber, Ice shelf thickness over Larsen C, Antarctica derived from satellite altimetry, Geophysical Research Letters, Oct 2009) • In the middle of extending to all ice shelves with area over 10km2

  3. Method • Infer thickness from surface elevation assuming hydrostatic equilibrium • where Z = thickness, e = elevation wrt sea level, δ = firn density correction, ρw = density of water and ρi = density of ice

  4. Data • Use ERS-1 geodetic phase • Can’t just use DEM • Don’t include GLAS in data rich regions due to dH/dt considerations

  5. Data availability - Larsen C • Black dots are data coverage • White contours are elevation • Coloured background is thickness

  6. Validation of elevation – Larsen C • Error = -2.3 ± 4.9 m • Error = -1.7 ± 4.5 m if accounting for dH/dt between GLAS and ERS-1 • Error = -0.5 ±1.1m in central area

  7. Firn correction – Larsen C • Regional atmosphere model run at 55 km used to force a steady state firn densification model. • Accounts for temperature, accumulation and wind speed variability but not horizontal compaction or melting. • Mean reduced to 10 m due to lack of melt

  8. Validation of thicknesses – Larsen C

  9. Validation of thicknesses – Larsen C • Error = -0.22±36.7m • Error = +23.2±43.67m without accounting for melt in firn correction • Error = -2.03±11.04m in central area • Error = -1.45±68.5m within 10km of grounding line • Random error in validation data = 12m

  10. Conclusions and next steps • Ice thickness can be inferred from the geodetic phase of ERS-1 within acceptable errors (<15% of mean thickness) • Now need to apply to all ice shelves. • Only consider those over 10km2 • Use MOA grounding and coast line supplemented by Eric Rignot’s SAR grounding lines to determine areas considered as floating

  11. ERS coverage

  12. Ice shelf thickness

  13. Validation

More Related