Surface melt and the importance of water flow – an analysis based on high-resolution unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) data for an Arctic glacier

• Published in: The Cryosphere
• Main Authors: Bash, Eleanor A., Moorman, Brian J.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Copernicus Publications 2020
• Subjects: article; Verlagsveröffentlichung; Arctic; Nunavut; Fountain Glacier; albedo; The Cryosphere
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-549-2020; https://noa.gwlb.de/receive/cop_mods_00050671; https://noa.gwlb.de/servlets/MCRFileNodeServlet/cop_derivate_00050329/tc-14-549-2020.pdf; https://tc.copernicus.org/articles/14/549/2020/tc-14-549-2020.pdf

Models of glacier surface melt are commonly used in studies of glacier mass balance and runoff; however, with limited data available, most models are validated based on ablation stakes and data from automatic weather stations (AWSs). The technological advances of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and structure from motion (SfM) have made it possible to measure glacier surface melt in detail over larger portions of a glacier. In this study, we use melt measured using SfM processing of UAV imagery to assess the performance of an energy balance (EB) and enhanced temperature index (ETI) melt model in two dimensions. Imagery collected over a portion of the ablation zone of Fountain Glacier, Nunavut, on 21, 23, and 24 July 2016 was previously used to determine distributed surface melt. An AWS on the glacier provides some measured inputs for both models as well as an additional check on model performance. Modelled incoming solar radiation and albedo derived from UAV imagery are also used as inputs for both models, which were used to estimate melt from 21 to 24 July 2016. Both models estimate total melt at the AWS within 16 % of observations (4 % for ETI). Across the study area the median model error, calculated as the difference between modelled and measured melt (EB = −0.064 m, ETI = −0.050 m), is within the uncertainty of the measurements. The errors in both models were strongly correlated to the density of water flow features on the glacier surface. The relation between water flow and model error suggests that energy from surface water flow contributes significantly to surface melt on Fountain Glacier. Deep surface streams with highly asymmetrical banks are observed on Fountain Glacier, but the processes leading to their formation are missing in the model assessed here. The failure of the model to capture flow-induced melt would lead to significant underestimation of surface melt should the model be used to project future change.