4.4 Article

The annual glaciohydrology cycle in the ablation zone of the Greenland ice sheet: Part 2. Observed and modeled ice flow

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLACIOLOGY
卷 58, 期 207, 页码 51-64

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3189/2012JoG11J081

关键词

-

资金

  1. NASA [NNX08AT85G, NNX07AF15G]
  2. US National Science Foundation (NSF) [DDRI 0926911]
  3. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
  4. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)
  5. NSF [EAR 0922126]
  6. NASA [NNX08AT85G, 91996] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER
  7. Directorate For Geosciences
  8. Division Of Earth Sciences [0922126] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ice velocities observed in 2005/06 at three GPS stations along the Sermeq Avannarleq flowline, West Greenland, are used to characterize an observed annual velocity cycle. We attempt to reproduce this annual ice velocity cycle using a 1-D ice-flow model with longitudinal stresses coupled to a 1-D hydrology model that governs an empirical basal sliding rule. Seasonal basal sliding velocity is parameterized as a perturbation of prescribed winter sliding velocity that is proportional to the rate of change of glacier water storage. The coupled model reproduces the broad features of the annual basal sliding cycle observed along this flowline, namely a summer speed-up event followed by a fall slowdown event. We also evaluate the hypothesis that the observed annual velocity cycle is due to the annual calving cycle at the terminus. We demonstrate that the ice acceleration due to a catastrophic calving event takes an order of magnitude longer to reach CU/ETH ('Swiss') Camp (46 km upstream of the terminus) than is observed. The seasonal acceleration observed at Swiss Camp is therefore unlikely to be the result of velocity perturbations propagated upstream via longitudinal coupling. Instead we interpret this velocity cycle to reflect the local history of glacier water balance.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据