A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves

Abstract Estimates of ice shelf mass loss are typically based on surface height measurements, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium and estimated firn thickness. Recent investigations, however, challenge the assumption that ice shelves are freely floating, particularly in proximity to narrow structures s...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Glaciology
Main Authors: Chartrand, Allison M., Howat, Ian M.
Other Authors: Office of Polar Programs, Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Cambridge University Press (CUP) 2023
Subjects:
Online Access:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0022143023000497
id crcambridgeupr:10.1017/jog.2023.49
record_format openpolar
spelling crcambridgeupr:10.1017/jog.2023.49 2024-09-15T17:47:53+00:00 A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves Chartrand, Allison M. Howat, Ian M. Office of Polar Programs Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate 2023 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49 https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0022143023000497 en eng Cambridge University Press (CUP) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Journal of Glaciology page 1-14 ISSN 0022-1430 1727-5652 journal-article 2023 crcambridgeupr https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49 2024-07-10T04:04:37Z Abstract Estimates of ice shelf mass loss are typically based on surface height measurements, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium and estimated firn thickness. Recent investigations, however, challenge the assumption that ice shelves are freely floating, particularly in proximity to narrow structures such as basal channels and shear margins. We compare contemporaneous measurements of Antarctic ice shelf thickness, from ice-penetrating radar, to freeboard height, from laser altimetry, acquired during multiple airborne surveys. On average, the hydrostatic thickness differs from observed thickness by at least ~17 ± 98 m, but this difference varies well beyond the propagated error within and among ice shelves, and depends on the corrections applied. We find that uncertainty in firn thickness can account for most, but not all, of the imbalance. Overall, errors in hydrostatic thickness do not significantly impact estimated basal melt rates. Our results indicate that localized approaches to estimating ice shelf thickness and rates of change are not applicable at large scales, and vice versa, and point to the need for more abundant and accurate firn and ice thickness measurements to improve estimates and predictions of ice shelf mass loss. Article in Journal/Newspaper Antarc* Antarctic Ice Shelf Ice Shelves Journal of Glaciology Cambridge University Press Journal of Glaciology 1 14
institution Open Polar
collection Cambridge University Press
op_collection_id crcambridgeupr
language English
description Abstract Estimates of ice shelf mass loss are typically based on surface height measurements, assuming hydrostatic equilibrium and estimated firn thickness. Recent investigations, however, challenge the assumption that ice shelves are freely floating, particularly in proximity to narrow structures such as basal channels and shear margins. We compare contemporaneous measurements of Antarctic ice shelf thickness, from ice-penetrating radar, to freeboard height, from laser altimetry, acquired during multiple airborne surveys. On average, the hydrostatic thickness differs from observed thickness by at least ~17 ± 98 m, but this difference varies well beyond the propagated error within and among ice shelves, and depends on the corrections applied. We find that uncertainty in firn thickness can account for most, but not all, of the imbalance. Overall, errors in hydrostatic thickness do not significantly impact estimated basal melt rates. Our results indicate that localized approaches to estimating ice shelf thickness and rates of change are not applicable at large scales, and vice versa, and point to the need for more abundant and accurate firn and ice thickness measurements to improve estimates and predictions of ice shelf mass loss.
author2 Office of Polar Programs
Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Chartrand, Allison M.
Howat, Ian M.
spellingShingle Chartrand, Allison M.
Howat, Ian M.
A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves
author_facet Chartrand, Allison M.
Howat, Ian M.
author_sort Chartrand, Allison M.
title A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves
title_short A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves
title_full A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves
title_fullStr A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves
title_full_unstemmed A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves
title_sort comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of antarctic ice shelves
publisher Cambridge University Press (CUP)
publishDate 2023
url http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/S0022143023000497
genre Antarc*
Antarctic
Ice Shelf
Ice Shelves
Journal of Glaciology
genre_facet Antarc*
Antarctic
Ice Shelf
Ice Shelves
Journal of Glaciology
op_source Journal of Glaciology
page 1-14
ISSN 0022-1430 1727-5652
op_rights http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
op_doi https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49
container_title Journal of Glaciology
container_start_page 1
op_container_end_page 14
_version_ 1810497585387929600