EGU21-2926, updated on 03 Mar 2021
https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu21-2926
EGU General Assembly 2021
© Author(s) 2021. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Calibration of a frontal ablation parameterization applied to Greenland's peripheral calving glaciers

Beatriz Recinos1,2,3, Fabien Maussion4, Brice Noël5, Marco Möller2,6, and Ben Marzeion2,3
Beatriz Recinos et al.
  • 1National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK. (beatriz.recinos.rivas@noc.ac.uk)
  • 2Institute of Geography, Climate Lab, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
  • 3MARUM - Center for Marine Environmental Sciences, University of Bremen, Bremen, Germany
  • 4Department of Atmospheric and Cryospheric Sciences, Universität Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria
  • 5Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
  • 6Geography Department, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany

Greenland's Peripheral Glaciers (PGs) are glaciers that are weakly or not connected to the Ice Sheet. Many are tidewater, losing mass via frontal ablation. Without comprehensive regional observations or enough individual estimates of frontal ablation, constraining model parameters remains a challenging task in this region. We present three independent ways to calibrate the calving parameterization implemented in the Open Global Glacier Model (OGGM) and asses the impact of accounting for frontal ablation on the estimate of ice stored in PGs. We estimate an average regional frontal ablation flux for PGs of 7.94±4.15 Gtyr-1 after calibrating the model with two different satellite velocity products, and of 0.75±0.55 Gt yr-1 if the model is constrained using frontal ablation fluxes derived from independent modelled Surface Mass Balance (SMB) averaged over an equilibrium reference period (1961-1990). This second method is based on the assumption that most PGs during that time have an equilibrium between mass gain via SMB and mass loss via frontal ablation. This assumption can serve as a basis to assess the order of magnitude of dynamic mass loss of glaciers when compared to the SMB imbalance. By comparing the model output after applying both calibration methods, we find that the model is not able to predict individual tidewater glacier dynamics if it relies only on SMB estimates and the assumption of a closed budget to constrain the model. The differences between the results from both calibration methods serve as an indication of how strong the dynamic imbalance might have been for PGs during that reference period.

How to cite: Recinos, B., Maussion, F., Noël, B., Möller, M., and Marzeion, B.: Calibration of a frontal ablation parameterization applied to Greenland's peripheral calving glaciers, EGU General Assembly 2021, online, 19–30 Apr 2021, EGU21-2926, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-egu21-2926, 2021.

Displays

Display file