2004
DOI: 10.1061/(asce)0887-381x(2004)18:2(70)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Modeling Impacts of Thaw Lakes to Ground Thermal Regime in Northern Alaska

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
13
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 22 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
1
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A geothermal heat flux of 0.055 W m −2 , a value measured from deep beneath thaw lake terrain in northern Alaska [ Lachenbruch et al , 1982], is applied to the bottom boundary, and an equilibrium temperature profile imposed as an initial condition. Thermal conductivity, k and heat capacity, C , are 1.17 W m −1 K −1 and 4.0 × 10 8 J kg −1 K −1 in the frozen state, and 0.33 W m −1 K −1 and 6.7 × 10 8 J kg −1 K −1 in the unfrozen state, which are within the range of thermal parameters used by Lachenbruch et al [1988] and Zhou and Huang [2004]. These assume k and C values for soil components summarized by Williams and Smith [1991], with volumetric proportions: 10% organic material, 40% mineral soil and 50% ice.…”
Section: Modeled Taliks and Bathymetrysupporting
confidence: 57%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…A geothermal heat flux of 0.055 W m −2 , a value measured from deep beneath thaw lake terrain in northern Alaska [ Lachenbruch et al , 1982], is applied to the bottom boundary, and an equilibrium temperature profile imposed as an initial condition. Thermal conductivity, k and heat capacity, C , are 1.17 W m −1 K −1 and 4.0 × 10 8 J kg −1 K −1 in the frozen state, and 0.33 W m −1 K −1 and 6.7 × 10 8 J kg −1 K −1 in the unfrozen state, which are within the range of thermal parameters used by Lachenbruch et al [1988] and Zhou and Huang [2004]. These assume k and C values for soil components summarized by Williams and Smith [1991], with volumetric proportions: 10% organic material, 40% mineral soil and 50% ice.…”
Section: Modeled Taliks and Bathymetrysupporting
confidence: 57%
“… Ling and Zhang [2003] use a two‐dimensional finite element model to explore temperature profiles in permafrost as a function of lake temperature and time, predicting talik depths of 28 to 53 m beneath a lake of 800 m diameter after 3000 a, depending on water temperature. Zhou and Huang [2004] examine the response of varying air temperature on lake ice and talik development, showing lake ice thickness is closely linked to air temperature, and isotherms beneath a shallow lake (3 m, with lake ice thickness <2 m) migrate downward during the winter. One difficulty with existing dynamic numerical and steady state analytical models is that lake deepening caused by thaw subsidence in the talik is not addressed, even though this changes the boundaries and volume of the heat source, the lake.…”
Section: Thaw Lake Morphology and Taliksmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The simulated active layer depth and maximum lake ice thickness are 0.6 m [ Hopkins , 1949; Hopkins et al , 1955; Plug and West , 2009] and 1.5 m [ Zhou and Huang , 2004; Plug and West , 2009]. The simulated mean annual deep water temperature is 3°C, which is within the range of observed thermokarst lake bottom temperatures (1.5°C to 5.5°C) [ Burn , 2002, 2005], is the suggested average for deep water [ Burn , 2005], and is within the range of values used in previous simulations [ Ling and Zhang , 2003, 2004; Zhou and Huang , 2004; West and Plug , 2008; Plug and West , 2009; Taylor et al , 2008]. These later parameters also can vary systematically in the model with a change in mean annual temperature or amplitude from an assigned reference value using the accumulated degree days of thaw/freeze; however, no climate change was imposed in the simulations shown here.…”
Section: Simulation Setupmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Lake ice thickness is primarily controlled by surface air temperature, but water temperature and the depth, density and albedo of snow also play a role [ Duguay et al , 2003]. Winter lake ice thickness is set to 1.5 m in the model, consistent with measured lake ice in northern Alaska and northwestern Canada where MAAT is −6°C [ Allen , 1977; Jeffries et al , 1996; Zhou and Huang , 2004]. The interannual variability of lake ice in natural lakes is sufficiently small in magnitude (the 1 σ variability was 8.2 cm over 12 years of measurement for a lake inland of Shingle Point, in the YCP field area [ Allen , 1977]) that the annual maximum ice thickness is held constant in each model scenario.…”
Section: Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%