Glacial isostatic adjustment along the Pacific coast of central North America

Yousefi, Maryam; Milne, Glenn A.; Love, Ryan; Tarasov, Lev

doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2018.06.017

Cited by 29 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the Earth component of GIA models has used 1D (laterally homogeneous) viscosity models that neglect the influence of 3D structure. Surface geology (e.g., Kennett & TkalČić, 2008) and seismic tomography (e.g., Bunge & Grand, 2000) show that Earth's material properties are laterally heterogeneous and many studies have revealed that the 3D structure has a significant influence on GIA predictions (e.g., Austermann et al, 2013; Li et al, 2018; Yousefi et al, 2018). Indeed, 3D structure has been invoked as a mechanism whereby GIA models may better fit late Quaternary RSL records (e.g., Clark et al, 2019; Kuchar et al, 2019; Love et al, 2016), while neglecting 3D structure could introduce bias in 1D viscosity inversions (Lau et al, 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainties of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment Model Predictions in North America Associated With 3D Structure

Wang

et al. 2020

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We quantify GIA prediction uncertainties of 250 1D and 3D glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) models through comparisons with deglacial relative sea-level (RSL) data from North America and rate of vertical land motion ( _ U) and gravity rate of change ( _ G) from GNSS and GRACE data, respectively. Spatially, the size of the RSL uncertainties varies across North America with the largest from Hudson Bay and near previous ice margins along the northern Atlantic and Pacific coasts, which suggests 3D viscosity structure in the lower mantle and laterally varying lithospheric thickness. Temporally, RSL uncertainties decrease from the Last Glacial Maximum to present except for west of Hudson Bay and the northeastern Pacific coast. The uncertainties of both these regions increase from 30 to 45 m between 15 and 11 ka BP, which may be due to the rapid decrease of surface loading at that time. Present-day _ U and _ G uncertainties are largest in southwestern Hudson Bay with magnitudes of 2.4 mm/year and 0.4 μGal/year, mainly due to the 3D viscosity structure in the lower mantle.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Uncertainties of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment Model Predictions in North America Associated With 3D Structure

Wang

et al. 2020

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1). Yousefi et al (2018) assess the glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) in sea-level indicators along the western Northern American coast from southern Canada to the southern United States. They found significant mantle viscosity variability across this tectonically active region.…”

Section: The Last Glacial Cyclementioning

confidence: 99%

“…PALSEA brings together observational scientists and ice-sheet, climate and sea-level modelers in order to better define and interpret observational constraints on past sea-level rise and improve our understanding of ice-sheet responses to climate change. This PALSEA Quaternary Science Reviews special issue addresses these topics by examining orbital-scale sea-level changes during the late Pliocene (Grant et al, 2018), ice-sheet extent and volume prior to and during the last glacial maximum (Carlson et al, 2018;Pico et al, 2018;Simms et al, 2019), relative sea-level changes following the last glacial maximum (Barnett et al, 2019;Romundset et al, 2018;Simms et al, 2018;Xiong et al, 2018;Yokoyama et al, 2019;Yousefi et al, 2018), and full interglacial relative sea-level change during the last interglaciation (Skrivanek et al, 2018) (Fig. 1, 2b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PALeo constraints on SEA level rise (PALSEA): Ice-sheet and sea-level responses to past climate warming

Carlson

Dutton

Long

et al. 2019

Quaternary Science Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We compare our data to the predictions of the recent ICE-5G and ICE-6G models (Peltier, 2004;Peltier et al, 2015), and also to models we compute for a range of viscosity structures using the older ICE-3G model. Because our study area is distal to the main ice sheets and has consistently remained ice free, the predicted present-day vertical motions are small and are relatively insensitive to details regarding the ice history and geometry (e.g., Love et al, 2016 ;Roy & Peltier, 2015, 2017Sato et al, 2011Sato et al, , 2012Yousefi et al, 2018). Using a wide range of input model Alaska uplift is due to subduction that is compounded by isostatic rebound from glacial ice loss.…”

Section: Gia Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vertical Velocities, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, and Earth Structure of Northern and Western Alaska Based on Repeat GPS Measurements

DeGrandpre

Freymueller

2019

JGR Solid Earth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA), resulting from the Pleistocene loading of the Laurentide and Cordilleran ice sheets, is frequently associated with positive vertical velocities, or uplift. In Northern and Western Alaska, thousands of kilometers from the center of these ice sheets, vertical motion is primarily negative, or subsidence. Previously, no regional Earth structure model has been estimated for these areas using GIA modeling techniques, and the contribution of GIA processes to the observed subsidence signal has not been studied. We compare the vertical motion rates from 54 campaign and continuous GPS sites in Northern and Western Alaska to the predictions of the ICE‐5G and ICE‐6G GIA models, and to a suite of models that vary with four adjustable parameters defining the lithospheric thickness, asthenospheric thickness and viscosity, and upper mantle thickness and viscosity with the ICE‐3G loading model of Tushingham and Peltier (1991, https://doi.org/10.1029/90JB01583). The best overall fit with the ICE‐3G loading model and Earth model parameters were 120‐km lithosphere over a 100‐km asthenosphere with a viscosity of 2.5 × 1019 Pa/s, overlying a 450‐km‐thick upper mantle with a viscosity of 1.5 × 1021 Pa/s. These values are for a fixed lower mantle viscosity of 3 × 1021 Pa/s in a one‐dimensional Earth model that uses a linear Maxwell rheology. The GIA estimates are found to fit the GPS observations well and can be used to more accurately interpolate between measurement sites in a region where there is sparse spatial and temporal coverage of tectonic vertical velocities.

show abstract

Glacial isostatic adjustment along the Pacific coast of central North America

Cited by 29 publications

References 50 publications

Uncertainties of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment Model Predictions in North America Associated With 3D Structure

Uncertainties of Glacial Isostatic Adjustment Model Predictions in North America Associated With 3D Structure

PALeo constraints on SEA level rise (PALSEA): Ice-sheet and sea-level responses to past climate warming

Vertical Velocities, Glacial Isostatic Adjustment, and Earth Structure of Northern and Western Alaska Based on Repeat GPS Measurements

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About