4.4 Article

Bias-corrected estimates of glacier thickness in the Columbia River Basin, Canada

Journal

JOURNAL OF GLACIOLOGY
Volume 66, Issue 260, Pages 1051-1063

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jog.2020.75

Keywords

Ice thickness measurements; glacier modeling; glacier volume; ground-penetrating radar; mountain glaciers

Funding

  1. Columbia Basin Trust
  2. BC Hydro
  3. Natural Resources and Engineering Research Council of Canada
  4. Canadian Foundation for Innovation
  5. Canada Research Chairs Program
  6. Hakai Institute
  7. Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions
  8. University of Northern British Columbia
  9. Mitacs
  10. DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Several global datasets of glacier thickness exist, but the number of observations from western Canada are sparse and spatially biased. To supplement these limited observations, we measured ice thickness with ice penetrating radar on five glaciers in the Columbia Mountains, Canada. Our radar surveys, when combined with previous surveys for two glaciers in the Rocky Mountains, total 182 km of transects that represent 34 672 point measurements of ice thickness. Our measurements are, on average, 38% thicker than previous surface inversion model estimates of glacier thickness. Using our measurements within a cross-validation scheme, we model ice thickness with the Open Global Glacier Model (OGGM) driven with recent observations of surface mass balance and glacier elevation. We calibrated OGGM ice thickness by optimizing the ice creep parameter in the model. The optimized OGGM yields an ice volume for Columbia Basin of 122.5 +/- 22.4 km(3) for the year 2000, which is 23% greater than the range of previous estimates. At current rates of glacier mass loss for this region, glaciers would disappear from the basin in about 65-80 years. Disappearance of these glaciers will negatively affect the basin's surface hydrology, freshwater availability and aquatic ecosystems.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available