4.4 Article

Contrasting the modelled sensitivity of the Amundsen Sea Embayment ice streams

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLACIOLOGY
卷 62, 期 233, 页码 552-562

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jog.2016.40

关键词

Antarctic glaciology; grounding line; ice flow model; ice streams; ice-sheet modelling

资金

  1. UK Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) through iSTAR-C programme [NE/J005738/1]
  2. US Department of Energy
  3. UK Natural Environment Research Council, through NERC Centre for Polar Observation and Modelling (CPOM)
  4. NERC [NE/J005754/1, NE/J005738/1, cpom30001] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Natural Environment Research Council [1374592, NE/J005754/1, cpom30001, NE/J005738/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Present-day mass loss from the West Antarctic ice sheet is centred on the Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE), primarily through ice streams, including Pine Island, Thwaites and Smith glaciers. To understand the differences in response of these ice streams, we ran a perturbed parameter ensemble, using a vertically-integrated ice flow model with adaptive mesh refinement. We generated 71 sets of three physical parameters (basal traction coefficient, ice viscosity stiffening factor and sub-shelf melt rate), which we used to simulate the ASE for 50 years. We also explored the effects of different bed geometries and basal sliding laws. The mean rate of sea-level rise across the ensemble of simulations is comparable with current observed rates for the ASE. We found evidence that grounding line dynamics are sensitive to features in the bed geometry: simulations using BedMap2 geometry resulted in a higher rate of sea-level rise than simulations using a rougher geometry, created using mass conservation. Modelled grounding-line retreat of all the three ice streams was sensitive to viscosity and basal traction, while the melt rate was more important in Pine Island and Smith glaciers, which flow through more confined ice shelves than Thwaites, which has a relatively unconfined shelf.

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