4.7 Article

Roughness of Ice Shelves Is Correlated With Basal Melt Rates

Journal

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
Volume 48, Issue 21, Pages -

Publisher

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2021GL094743

Keywords

ice shelf; roughness

Funding

  1. NASA [80NSSC20K0568]
  2. DOMINOS project, a component of the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration (ITGC)
  3. National Science Foundation (NSF) [1738896]
  4. Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) [NE/S006605/1]
  5. NERC [NE/S006605/1] Funding Source: UKRI

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Recent research has found a strong correlation between the roughness of ice shelves and basal melt, suggesting that increased melt leads to larger channels for melting, increased fracturing and decreased stability. This indicates that the mechanical stability of ice shelves may be more tightly controlled by ocean forcing than previously thought.
Ice shelf collapse could trigger widespread retreat of marine-based portions of the Antarctic ice sheet. However, little is known about the processes that control the stability of ice shelves. Recent observations have revealed that ice shelves have topographic features that span a spectrum of wavelengths, including basal channels and crevasses. Here we use ground-penetrating radar data to quantify patterns of roughness within and between ice shelves. We find that roughness follows a power law with the scaling exponent approximately constant between ice shelves. However, the level of roughness varies by nearly an order of magnitude between ice shelves. Critically, we find that roughness strongly correlates with basal melt, suggesting that increased melt not only leads to larger melt channels, but also to increased fracturing, rifting and decreased ice shelf stability. This hints that the mechanical stability of ice shelves may be more tightly controlled by ocean forcing than previously thought.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available