4.6 Article

Historical behaviour of Dome C and Talos Dome (East Antarctica) as investigated by snow accumulation and ice velocity measurements

期刊

GLOBAL AND PLANETARY CHANGE
卷 60, 期 3-4, 页码 576-588

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2007.08.002

关键词

geophysical survey; ice divide; snow accumulation; Talos Dome; Dome C; East Antarctica

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ice divide-dome behaviour is used for ice sheet mass balance studies and interpretation of ice core records. In order to characterize the historical behaviour (last 400 yr) of Dome C and Talos Dome (East Antarctica), ice velocities have been measured since 1996 using a GPS system, and the palaeo-spatial variability of snow accumulation has been surveyed using snow radar and firn cores. The snow accumulation distribution of both domes indicates distributions of accumulation that are non-symmetrical in relation to dome morphology. Changes in spatial distributions have been observed over the last few centuries, with a decrease in snow accumulation gradient along the wind direction at Talos Dome and a counter-clockwise rotation of accumulation distribution in the northern part of Dome C. Observations at Dome C reveal a significant increase in accumulation since the 1950s, which could correlate to altered snow accumulation patterns due to changes in snowfall trajectory. Snow accumulation mechanisms are different at the two domes: a wind-driven snow accumulation process operates at Talos Dome, whereas snowfall trajectory direction is the main factor at Dome C. Repeated GPS measurements made at Talos Dome have highlighted changes in ice velocity, with a deceleration in the NE portion, acceleration in the SW portion and migration of dome summit, which are apparently correlated with changes in accumulation distribution. The observed behaviour in accumulation and velocity indicates that even the most remote areas of East Antarctica have changed from a decadal to secular scale. (c) 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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