EGU2020-5189, updated on 18 Jan 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-5189
EGU General Assembly 2020
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Glacial Isostatic Adjustment with 3D Earth models: A comparison of case studies of deglacial relative sea level records of North America and Russian Arctic

Tanghua Li1, Nicole Khan2, Simon Engelhart3, Alisa Baranskaya4, Peltier William5, Patrick Wu2,6, and Benjamin Horton1,7
Tanghua Li et al.
  • 1Earth Observatory of Singapore, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (li.tanghua@ntu.edu.sg)
  • 2Department of Earth Sciences and the Swire Marine Institute, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
  • 3Department of Geography, Durham University, UK
  • 4Lomonosov Moscow State University, Laboratory of Geoecology of the North, Moscow, Russia
  • 5Department of Physics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
  • 6Department of Geoscience, University of Calgary, Canada
  • 7Asian School of the Environment, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore

The Canadian landmass of North America and the Russian Arctic were covered by large ice sheets during the Last Glacial Maximum, and have been key areas for Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA) studies. Previous GIA studies have applied 1D models of Earth’s interior viscoelastic structure; however, seismic tomography, field geology and recent studies reveal the potential importance of 3D models of this structure. Here, using the latest quality-controlled deglacial sea-level databases from North America and the Russian Arctic, we investigate the effects of 3D structure on GIA predictions. We explore scaling factors in the upper mantle (βUM) and lower mantle (βLM) and the 1D background viscosity model (ηo) with predictions of of the ICE-6G_C (VM5a) glaciation/deglaciation model of Peltier et al (2015, JGR) in these two regions, and compare with the best fit 3D viscosity structures.

We compute gravitationally self-consistent relative sea-level histories with time dependent coastlines and rotational feedback using both the Normal Mode Method and Coupled Laplace-Finite Element Method. A subset of 3D GIA models is found that can fit the deglacial sea-level databases for both regions. These databases cover both the near and intermediate field regions. However, North America and Russian Arctic prefer different 3D structures (i.e., combinations of (ηo, βUM, βLM)) to provide the best fits. The Russian Arctic database prefers a softer background viscosity model (ηo), but larger scaling factors (βUM, βLM) than those preferred by the North America database.

Outstanding issues include the uncertainty of the history of local glaciation history. For example, preliminary modifications of the ice model in Russian Arctic reveal that the misfits of 1D models can be significantly reduced, but still fit less well than the best fit 3D GIA model.An additional issue concerns the extent to which the 3D models are able to improve both fits in North America and Russian Arctic when compared with 1D internal structure (ICE-6G_C VM5a & ICE-7G VM7), will be assessed in a preliminary fashion.

How to cite: Li, T., Khan, N., Engelhart, S., Baranskaya, A., William, P., Wu, P., and Horton, B.: Glacial Isostatic Adjustment with 3D Earth models: A comparison of case studies of deglacial relative sea level records of North America and Russian Arctic, EGU General Assembly 2020, Online, 4–8 May 2020, EGU2020-5189, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu2020-5189, 2020

Displays

Display file