4.7 Article

Antarctic surface and subsurface snow and ice melt fluxes

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
卷 18, 期 10, 页码 1469-1481

出版社

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JCLI3344.1

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This paper presents modeled surface and subsurface melt fluxes across near-coastal Antarctica. Simulations were performed using a physical-based energy balance model developed in conjunction with detailed field measurements in a mixed snow and blue-ice area of Dronning Maud Land, Antarctica. The model was combined with a satellite-derived map of Antarctic snow and blue-ice areas, 10 yr (1991-2000) of Antarctic meteorological station data, and a high-resolution meteorological distribution model, to provide daily simulated melt values on a 1-km grid covering Antarctica. Model simulations showed that 11.8% and 21.6% of the Antarctic continent experienced surface and subsurface melt, respectively. In addition, the simulations produced 10-yr averaged subsurface meltwater production fluxes of 316.5 and 57.4 km(3) yr(-1) for snow-covered and blue-ice areas, respectively. The corresponding figures for surface melt were 46.0 and 2.0 km(3) yr(-1), respectively, thus demonstrating the dominant role of subsurface over surface meltwater production. In total, computed surface and subsurface meltwater production values equal 31 mm yr(-1) if evenly distributed over all of Antarctica. While, at any given location, meltwater production rates were highest in blue-ice areas, total annual Antarctic meltwater production was highest for snow-covered areas due to its larger spatial extent. The simulations also showed higher interannual meltwater variations for surface melt than subsurface melt. Since most of the produced meltwater refreezes near where it was produced, the simulated melt has little effect on the Antarctic mass balance. However, the melt contribution is important for the surface energy balance and in modifying surface and near-surface snow and ice properties such as density and grain size.

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