4.7 Article

Surface energy balance of the Sygyktinsky Glacier, south Eastern Siberia, during the ablation period and its sensitivity to meteorological fluctuations

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 11, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-00749-x

关键词

-

资金

  1. Russian Foundation for Basic Research [19-05-00668, 0279-2021-0005, AAAA-A21-21-121012190059-5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study used an automatic meteorological station to record the meteorological and energy characteristics of the Sygyktinsky Glacier in south Eastern Siberia, finding that net radiation was the main contributor to the surface energy balance and glacier ablation was more sensitive to changes in shortwave radiation and wind speed.
The physically based melt of the low elevation Eastern Siberian glaciers is poorly understood due to the lack of direct micrometeorological studies. We used an automatic meteorological station to record the meteorological and energy characteristics of the Sygyktinsky Glacier, south Eastern Siberia (56.8 degrees N, 117.4 degrees E, 2,560 m a.s.l.), during two ablation seasons and computed the surface energy balance (SEB) for 30-min intervals. The glacier ablation was both modeled and measured by stakes and a thermistor cable. The net radiation (R-net) was the main contributor (71-75 W m(-2), 89-95%) to the SEB (79 W m(-2), 100%), followed by sensible (2-4 W m(-2), 3-5%) and latent (2-3 W m(-2), 2-4%) heat fluxes. The net shortwave radiation was the main positive component of R-net, while the net longwave radiation was weak and either negative (- 15 W m(-2) in 2019) or positive (4 W m(-2) in 2020). The small proportion of turbulent fluxes in the SEB is explained by the low wind speed (1.2 m s(-1)). The glacier ablation was found to be more sensitive to changes in shortwave radiation and wind speed, suggesting the need to consider the atmospheric conditions of the ablation period (summer snowfalls, cloudiness, wind speed) when analyzing long-term trends in glacial changes.

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

4.7
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