Efficiency of artificial neural networks for glacier ice-thickness estimation: a case study in western Himalaya, India

Knowledge of glacier volume is crucial for ice flow modelling and predicting the impacts of climate change on glaciers. Rugged terrain, harsh weather conditions and logistic costs limit field-based ice thickness observations in the Himalaya. Remote-sensing applications, together with mathematical mo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Glaciology
Main Authors: Mohd Anul Haq, Mohd Farooq Azam, Christian Vincent
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: Cambridge University Press 2021
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1017/jog.2021.19
https://doaj.org/article/b7c9913d64994918b753a697078991d9
Description
Summary:Knowledge of glacier volume is crucial for ice flow modelling and predicting the impacts of climate change on glaciers. Rugged terrain, harsh weather conditions and logistic costs limit field-based ice thickness observations in the Himalaya. Remote-sensing applications, together with mathematical models, provide alternative techniques for glacier ice thickness and volume estimation. The objective of the present research is to assess the application of artificial neural network (ANN) modelling coupled with remote-sensing techniques to estimate ice thickness on individual glaciers with direct field measurements. We have developed two ANN models and estimated the ice thickness of Chhota Shigri Glacier (western Himalaya) on ten transverse cross sections and two longitudinal sections. The ANN model estimates agree well with ice thickness measurements from a ground-penetrating radar, available for five transverse cross sections on Chhota Shigri Glacier. The overall root mean square errors of the two ANN models are 24 and 13 m and the mean bias errors are ±13 and ±6 m, respectively, which are significantly lower than for other available models. The estimated mean ice thickness and volume for Chhota Shigri Glacier are 109 ± 17 m and 1.69 ± 0.26 km3, respectively.