2018
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-22765-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Recent high-resolution Antarctic ice velocity maps reveal increased mass loss in Wilkes Land, East Antarctica

Abstract: We constructed Antarctic ice velocity maps from Landsat 8 images for the years 2014 and 2015 at a high spatial resolution (100 m). These maps were assembled from 10,690 scenes of displacement vectors inferred from more than 10,000 optical images acquired from December 2013 through March 2016. We estimated the mass discharge of the Antarctic ice sheet in 2008, 2014, and 2015 using the Landsat ice velocity maps, interferometric synthetic aperture radar (InSAR)-derived ice velocity maps (~2008) available from pri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
81
2

Year Published

2019
2019
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
1

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 76 publications
(83 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
0
81
2
Order By: Relevance
“…A comparison of our results with those of previous studies (Table ) suggests similar ice discharge values for the AIS basin when the ice thickness at the flux gate is mostly derived from airborne RES data (Gardner et al, ; Wen et al, ; Yu et al, ). However, the ice discharge estimations from Wen et al (), Rignot et al (), Depoorter et al (), Shen et al (), and Rignot et al () are higher than our results. The most possible reason for the differences is the overestimation of the grounding line ice thickness.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 83%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…A comparison of our results with those of previous studies (Table ) suggests similar ice discharge values for the AIS basin when the ice thickness at the flux gate is mostly derived from airborne RES data (Gardner et al, ; Wen et al, ; Yu et al, ). However, the ice discharge estimations from Wen et al (), Rignot et al (), Depoorter et al (), Shen et al (), and Rignot et al () are higher than our results. The most possible reason for the differences is the overestimation of the grounding line ice thickness.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 83%
“…The higher SMB likely indicates a larger amount of mass gain. Moreover, Shen et al () and Rignot et al () used the long‐term averaged RACMO2.3p1 SMB and obtained a slightly negative mass balance. In contrast, the use of the newer version RACMO2.3p2 SMB will result in a positive mass balance in both studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 3 more Smart Citations