2011
DOI: 10.3189/002214311798843331
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Distribution of debris thickness and its effect on ice melt at Hailuogou glacier, southeastern Tibetan Plateau, using in situ surveys and ASTER imagery

Abstract: ABSTRACT. Debris cover is widely present in glacier ablation areas of the Tibetan Plateau, and its spatial distribution greatly affects glacier melt rates. High-resolution in situ measurements of debris thickness on Hailuogou glacier, Mount Gongga, southeastern Tibetan Plateau, show pronounced inhomogeneous debris distribution. An analysis of transverse and longitudinal profiles indicates that the ground-surveyed debris thicknesses and Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER)-deri… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

8
156
1

Year Published

2013
2013
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 147 publications
(178 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
8
156
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The few available field measurements do not support a relationship between debris thickness and elevation (e.g., Mihalcea et al, 2006;Reid et al, 2012). However, measurements on the Tibetan Plateau (Zhang et al, 2011) in Nepal (Nicholson and Benn, 2012), and in the Karakoram (Mihalcea et al, 2008a) indicate that thicker values are more prevalent near glacier termini, while thinner ones are more ubiquitous up-glacier.…”
Section: Specification Of Debris Extent and Thickness In Wrf D3mentioning
confidence: 97%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The few available field measurements do not support a relationship between debris thickness and elevation (e.g., Mihalcea et al, 2006;Reid et al, 2012). However, measurements on the Tibetan Plateau (Zhang et al, 2011) in Nepal (Nicholson and Benn, 2012), and in the Karakoram (Mihalcea et al, 2008a) indicate that thicker values are more prevalent near glacier termini, while thinner ones are more ubiquitous up-glacier.…”
Section: Specification Of Debris Extent and Thickness In Wrf D3mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Specifying the debris thickness was more complex, since this field varies strongly over small spatial scales. For example, Nicholson and Benn (2012) reported very heterogeneous debris thicknesses on the Ngozumpa glacier, Nepal, varying between 0.5 and 2.0 m over distances of less than 100 m. Spatial variability arises from many factors, including hillslope fluxes to the glacier; surface and subsurface transport and, the presence of ice cliffs, melt ponds and crevasses (e.g., Brock et al, 2010;Zhang et al, 2011). The few available field measurements do not support a relationship between debris thickness and elevation (e.g., Mihalcea et al, 2006;Reid et al, 2012).…”
Section: Specification Of Debris Extent and Thickness In Wrf D3mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Nakawo and Rana (1999) also commented on areas with exposed ice cliffs reducing the surface temperature of the pixel, thereby lowering the calculated thermal resistances. Zhang et al (2011) did not address the low values of thermal resistances, but did attribute the small disagreement between modeled and observed melt rates to the unknown variations in meteorological conditions caused by altitude, aspect, and shading in different areas, as well as the unknown nature of water content in the debris. The mixed-pixel effect and the spatial variation in meteorological conditions may reduce the thermal resistances, but it is unlikely to cause the satellitederived thermal resistances to be 1 or 2 orders of a magnitude lower than those found in the field.…”
Section: R Rounce and D C Mckinney: Debris Thickness Of Glaciermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…These studies use surface temperature data from satellite imagery in conjunction with an energy balance model to solve for the thermal resistance, which is the debris thickness divided by the thermal conductivity (Nakawo and Rana, 1999;Nakawo et al, 1999;Suzuki et al, 2007;Zhang et al, 2011). If the thermal conductivity of the debris is known, the model can solve directly for debris thickness (Foster et al, 2012).…”
Section: R Rounce and D C Mckinney: Debris Thickness Of Glaciermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some studies have characterized the small-scale glacier surface topography of debris-covered glaciers using field-based surveys (Iwata et al, 2000;Sakai and Fujita, 2010;Zhang et al, 2011), while other studies focused on understanding patterns at the mountain-range scale (Scherler et al, 2011;Bolch et al, 2012;Gardelle et al, 2013;Racoviteanu et al, 2014). Glacier shrinkage and mass loss has been documented in the Himalaya concomitantly with an increase in debris cover Nuimura et al, 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%