Volume–area scaling parameterisation of Norwegian ice caps: A comparison of different approaches
Over the recent decades, glaciers have in general continued to lose mass, causing surface lowering, volume reduction and frontal retreat, thus contributing to global sea-level rise. When making assessments of present and future sea-level change and management of water resources in glaciated catchmen...
| Published in: | The Holocene |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article in Journal/Newspaper |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
SAGE Publications
2016
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0959683616652712 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0959683616652712 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full-xml/10.1177/0959683616652712 |
| Summary: | Over the recent decades, glaciers have in general continued to lose mass, causing surface lowering, volume reduction and frontal retreat, thus contributing to global sea-level rise. When making assessments of present and future sea-level change and management of water resources in glaciated catchments, precise estimates of glacier volume are important. The glacier volume cannot be measured on every single glacier. Therefore, the global glacier volume must be estimated from models or scaling approaches. Volume–area scaling is mostly applied for estimating volumes of glaciers and ice caps on a regional and global scale by using a statistical–theoretical relationship between glacier volume ( V) and area ( A) ( V = cA γ ) (for explanation of the parameters c and γ, see Eq. 1). In this paper, a two-dimensional (2D) glacier model has been applied on four Norwegian ice caps (Hardangerjøkulen, Nordre Folgefonna, Spørteggbreen and Vestre Svartisen) in order to obtain values for the volume–area relationship on ice caps. The curve obtained for valley glaciers gives the best fit to the smallest plateau glaciers when c = 0.027 km 3−2 γ and γ = 1.375, and a slightly poorer fit when the glacier increases in size. For ice caps, c = 0.056 km 3−2 γ and γ = 1.25 fit reasonably well for the largest, but yield less fit to the smaller. |
|---|