2020
DOI: 10.1017/jog.2020.88
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Reanalysing the 2007–19 glaciological mass-balance series of Mera Glacier, Nepal, Central Himalaya, using geodetic mass balance

Abstract: The 2007–19 glaciological mass-balance series of Mera Glacier in the Everest Region, East Nepal, is reanalysed using the geodetic mass balance assessed by differencing two DEMs obtained from Pléiades stereo-images acquired in November 2012 and in October 2018. The glaciological glacier-wide annual mass balance of Mera Glacier has to be systematically decreased by 0.11 m w.e. a−1 to match the geodetic mass balance. We attribute part of the positive bias of the glaciological mass balance to an over-estimation of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
49
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 41 publications
(58 reference statements)
4
49
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The accuracy of the elevation product is first assessed by comparing the photogrammetrically created DSMs with GVPs, randomly divided over the study area. MAE between measured and modelled elevation is on the order of a few centimetres (Table 2), which is similar to values found in other studies (Whitehead et al, 2013;Immerzeel et al, 2014;Wigmore and Mark, 2017;Zhang et al, 2019). As such, the accuracy of the created DSMs is high.…”
Section: Surface Elevation Changes and Filteringsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…The accuracy of the elevation product is first assessed by comparing the photogrammetrically created DSMs with GVPs, randomly divided over the study area. MAE between measured and modelled elevation is on the order of a few centimetres (Table 2), which is similar to values found in other studies (Whitehead et al, 2013;Immerzeel et al, 2014;Wigmore and Mark, 2017;Zhang et al, 2019). As such, the accuracy of the created DSMs is high.…”
Section: Surface Elevation Changes and Filteringsupporting
confidence: 87%
“…a −1 [55]. However, the uncertainty estimated in our study was smaller than the similar studies that used coarse DEMs (e.g., [56][57][58]), confirming the high precision of the TLS surveys. Note that this study only focused on glacier mass balance in the ablation area, and uncertainties in estimated accumulation had not been considered, which probably improved the accuracy of geodetic mass balance [59].…”
Section: Accuracy Of Dem Differencing and Geodetic Mass Balancesupporting
confidence: 77%
“…Extrapolating point measurements to the entire glacier area is, however, subject to considerable uncertainties (Fountain and Vecchia, 1999; Cox and March, 2004; Holmlund and others, 2005; Thibert and others, 2008). Re-analysis at regular intervals combining direct point observations with independent geodetic mass changes is therefore recommended (Haeberli and others, 2007; Zemp and others, 2013), and is performed based on a wide range of approaches (Huss and others, 2009a; Van Beusekom and others, 2010; Barandun and others, 2015; Andreassen and others, 2016; Klug and others, 2018; O'Neel and others, 2019; Wagnon and others, 2021). In the case of Claridenfirn, computation of glacier-wide mass balance is further complicated due to ice losses by break-off at a frontal ice cliff.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%