Analysis of a GRACE global mascon solution for Gulf of Alaska glaciers

Arendt, A. A.; Luthcke, S. B.; Gardner, Alex; O’Neel, S.; Hill, David F.; Moholdt, Geir; Abdalati, W.

doi:10.3189/2013jog12j197

Cited by 79 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This can be related to ice mass loss once glacial isostatic adjustment has been accounted for Velicogna and Wahr 2006;Chen et al 2006b;Wouters et al 2008;Velicogna 2009;Velicogna and Wahr 2013). Examples of other regions of the cryosphere concerned with documented linear trends include Alaskan mountain glacier melting (Chen et al 2006a;Arendt et al 2013;Larsen et al 2015) and icefield melting in Patagonia (Chen et al 2007b;Ivins et al 2011). Strong linear trends located close to the Hudson Bay have been related to glacial isostatic adjustment (Tamisiea et al 2007), and recent studies focusing on Arctic regions showed that both isostatic and hydrological trends contribute to the observed signals (Frappart et al 2011a;Wang et al 2013).…”

Section: Linear Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Global Water Storage Variability from GRACE: Trends, Seasonal Cycle, Subseasonal Anomalies and Extremes

Humphrey

Gudmundsson

Seneviratne

2016

Remote Sensing and Water Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Throughout the past decade, the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) has given an unprecedented view on global variations in terrestrial water storage. While an increasing number of case studies have provided a rich overview on regional analyses, a global assessment on the dominant features of GRACE variability is still lacking. To address this, we survey key features of temporal variability in the GRACE record by decomposing gridded time series of monthly equivalent water height into linear trends, inter-annual, seasonal, and subseasonal (intra-annual) components. We provide an overview of the relative importance and spatial distribution of these components globally. A correlation analysis with precipitation and temperature reveals that both the inter-annual and subseasonal anomalies are tightly related to fluctuations in the atmospheric forcing. As a novelty, we show that for large regions of the world high-frequency anomalies in the monthly GRACE signal, which have been partly interpreted as noise, can be statistically reconstructed from daily precipitation once an adequate averaging filter is applied. This filter integrates the temporally decaying contribution of precipitation to the storage changes in any given month, including earlier precipitation. Finally, we also survey extreme dry anomalies in the GRACE record and relate them to documented drought events. This global assessment sets regional studies in a broader context and reveals phenomena that had not been documented so far.

show abstract

Section: Linear Trendsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Global Water Storage Variability from GRACE: Trends, Seasonal Cycle, Subseasonal Anomalies and Extremes

Humphrey

Gudmundsson

Seneviratne

2016

Remote Sensing and Water Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…During the period 2003-09 their rate of mass loss was ∼50 Gt a À1 , ∼1/5 of the mass loss of the global glaciers excluding ice sheets (Gardner and others, 2013). The largest mass losses are found in the maritime climates around the Gulf of Alaska (Arendt andothers, 2002, 2013;Berthier and others, 2010). The mass loss of Alaska's glaciers is expected to continue; for example, Radićand others (2013) project losses between 18 and 45% by the end of the 21st century.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Modeling the evolution of the Juneau Icefield between 1971 and 2100 using the Parallel Ice Sheet Model (PISM)

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous studies investigating mass loss (e.g., Larsen et al, 2007;Berthier et al, 2010;Arendt et al, 2013;Larsen et al, 2015) and glacier dynamics (e.g., O'Neel et al, 2001O'Neel et al, , 2003 at Alaskan glaciers cover the Stikine Icefield, which is a small fraction of these generally regional studies. These studies lack the resolution to discern individual glaciers (e.g., Arendt et al, 2013), have incomplete coverage (e.g., Larsen et al, 2015), or do not incorporate the most recent data (e.g., Larsen et al, 2007;Berthier et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies lack the resolution to discern individual glaciers (e.g., Arendt et al, 2013), have incomplete coverage (e.g., Larsen et al, 2015), or do not incorporate the most recent data (e.g., Larsen et al, 2007;Berthier et al, 2010). We update mass loss estimates for the Stikine Icefield by calculating thinning rates ( models (DEMs) derived from satellite stereo-optical data and compare these results with airborne LIDAR centerline elevation tracks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stikine Icefield Mass Loss between 2000 and 2013/2014

Melkonian¹,

Willis

Pritchard

2016

Front. Earth Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We calculate thinning rates ( dh ) at the 5800 km 2 Stikine Icefield of southeast dt Alaska from stacked digital elevation models (DEMs) acquired between 2000 and 2013/2014, and glacier velocities between 1985 and 2014 from feature tracking on optical image pairs. We find a mass change rate of −3.3 ± 1.1 Gt yr −1 between 2000 and 2014, equivalent to an area-averaged elevation change rate of −0.57 ± 0.18 m w.e. yr −1 . In 2014, land-terminating glaciers are 50% of the Stikine Icefield's glaciated area and contribute −0.9 ± 0.4 Gt yr −1 of mass change (27% of the total), while marine-terminating glaciers are only 30% of the total glaciated area, but contribute 1.5−1 − ± 0.3 Gt yr (or 45% of total mass change, with the remaining mass loss from lacustrine-terminating glaciers). We estimate the frontal ablation flux between 2000 and 2014 at the four largest marine-terminating glaciers on the Stikine Icefield (covering 90-95% of the marine-terminating glaciated area) using our glacier velocities and maps of fjord bathymetry to estimate terminus cross sections and glacier thicknesses. The combined 2014 frontal ablation flux of these four glaciers is 1.18 ± 0.14 Gt yr −1 , which may account for the difference in average mass loss between marine-and land-terminating glaciers on the Stikine Icefield. The Stikine and adjacent Juneau Icefields have very different mass loss contributions from marine-terminating glaciers (45% vs. effectively 0%), but both have area-averaged elevation change rates that are less negative than Alaska-wide estimates, which is surprising for these southernmost icefields in Alaska.

show abstract

Analysis of a GRACE global mascon solution for Gulf of Alaska glaciers

Cited by 79 publications

References 54 publications

Assessing Global Water Storage Variability from GRACE: Trends, Seasonal Cycle, Subseasonal Anomalies and Extremes

Assessing Global Water Storage Variability from GRACE: Trends, Seasonal Cycle, Subseasonal Anomalies and Extremes

Modeling the evolution of the Juneau Icefield between 1971 and 2100 using the Parallel Ice Sheet Model (PISM)

Stikine Icefield Mass Loss between 2000 and 2013/2014

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About