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

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 ba...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Glaciology
Main Authors: Allison M. Chartrand, Ian M. Howat
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Cambridge University Press
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49
https://doaj.org/article/4429bb68ed1e4855b7a28c1a7e4118ad
id ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:4429bb68ed1e4855b7a28c1a7e4118ad
record_format openpolar
spelling ftdoajarticles:oai:doaj.org/article:4429bb68ed1e4855b7a28c1a7e4118ad 2023-08-27T04:04:39+02:00 A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves Allison M. Chartrand Ian M. Howat https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49 https://doaj.org/article/4429bb68ed1e4855b7a28c1a7e4118ad EN eng Cambridge University Press https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022143023000497/type/journal_article https://doaj.org/toc/0022-1430 https://doaj.org/toc/1727-5652 doi:10.1017/jog.2023.49 0022-1430 1727-5652 https://doaj.org/article/4429bb68ed1e4855b7a28c1a7e4118ad Journal of Glaciology, Pp 1-14 Antarctic glaciology ice shelves ice thickness measurements radio-echo sounding remote sensing Environmental sciences GE1-350 Meteorology. Climatology QC851-999 article ftdoajarticles https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49 2023-08-06T00:35:45Z 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 Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles Antarctic Journal of Glaciology 1 14
institution Open Polar
collection Directory of Open Access Journals: DOAJ Articles
op_collection_id ftdoajarticles
language English
topic Antarctic glaciology
ice shelves
ice thickness measurements
radio-echo sounding
remote sensing
Environmental sciences
GE1-350
Meteorology. Climatology
QC851-999
spellingShingle Antarctic glaciology
ice shelves
ice thickness measurements
radio-echo sounding
remote sensing
Environmental sciences
GE1-350
Meteorology. Climatology
QC851-999
Allison M. Chartrand
Ian M. Howat
A comparison of contemporaneous airborne altimetry and ice-thickness measurements of Antarctic ice shelves
topic_facet Antarctic glaciology
ice shelves
ice thickness measurements
radio-echo sounding
remote sensing
Environmental sciences
GE1-350
Meteorology. Climatology
QC851-999
description 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.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Allison M. Chartrand
Ian M. Howat
author_facet Allison M. Chartrand
Ian M. Howat
author_sort Allison M. Chartrand
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
url https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2023.49
https://doaj.org/article/4429bb68ed1e4855b7a28c1a7e4118ad
geographic Antarctic
geographic_facet Antarctic
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, Pp 1-14
op_relation https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0022143023000497/type/journal_article
https://doaj.org/toc/0022-1430
https://doaj.org/toc/1727-5652
doi:10.1017/jog.2023.49
0022-1430
1727-5652
https://doaj.org/article/4429bb68ed1e4855b7a28c1a7e4118ad
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_ 1775352641759477760