Open Access
Open access
Cryosphere, volume 11, issue 2, pages 949-970

How accurate are estimates of glacier ice thickness? Results from ITMIX, the Ice Thickness Models Intercomparison eXperiment

Daniel Farinotti 1, 2
Douglas J. Brinkerhoff 3
Garry K. C. Clarke 4
J. J. Fürst 5
Harry Frey 6
Prateek Gantayat 7
F. Gillet-Chaulet 8
Claire Girard 9
Matthias Huss 10, 11
Paul W. Leclercq 12
A. Linsbauer 10, 13
H. Machguth 10, 13
C. Martin 14
F. Maussion 15
Mathieu Morlighem 9
Cyrille Mosbeux 8
A. Pandit 16
Andrea Portmann 17
Antoine Rabatel 8
R. A. A. J. Ramsankaran 16
T. Reerink 18
Olivier Sanchez 8
Peter A. Stentoft 19
Sangita Singh Kumari 16
W. J. J. van Pelt 20
Brian J. Anderson 21
T. J. Benham 22, 23
Daniel Binder 24
J.A. DOWDESWELL 22, 23
Andrea Fischer 25
Kay Helfricht 25
S. S. Kutuzov 26
Robert McNabb 27, 28
GUDMUNDSSON GR 14
Huilin Li 29
L. M. Andreassen 30
Show full list: 37 authors
23
 
Cambridge UK
24
 
Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG), Vienna, Austria
29
 
State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Sciences, Tian Shan Glaciological Station, CAREERI, CAS, Lanzhou, China
30
 
Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE), Oslo, Norway
Publication typeJournal Article
Publication date2017-04-18
Journal: Cryosphere
scimago Q1
SJR2.132
CiteScore8.7
Impact factor4.4
ISSN19940416, 19940424
Water Science and Technology
Earth-Surface Processes
Abstract

Abstract. Knowledge of the ice thickness distribution of glaciers and ice caps is an important prerequisite for many glaciological and hydrological investigations. A wealth of approaches has recently been presented for inferring ice thickness from characteristics of the surface. With the Ice Thickness Models Intercomparison eXperiment (ITMIX) we performed the first coordinated assessment quantifying individual model performance. A set of 17 different models showed that individual ice thickness estimates can differ considerably – locally by a spread comparable to the observed thickness. Averaging the results of multiple models, however, significantly improved the results: on average over the 21 considered test cases, comparison against direct ice thickness measurements revealed deviations on the order of 10 ± 24 % of the mean ice thickness (1σ estimate). Models relying on multiple data sets – such as surface ice velocity fields, surface mass balance, or rates of ice thickness change – showed high sensitivity to input data quality. Together with the requirement of being able to handle large regions in an automated fashion, the capacity of better accounting for uncertainties in the input data will be a key for an improved next generation of ice thickness estimation approaches.

Found 

Top-30

Journals

5
10
15
20
25
30
5
10
15
20
25
30

Publishers

5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
  • We do not take into account publications without a DOI.
  • Statistics recalculated only for publications connected to researchers, organizations and labs registered on the platform.
  • Statistics recalculated weekly.

Are you a researcher?

Create a profile to get free access to personal recommendations for colleagues and new articles.
Share
Cite this
GOST | RIS | BibTex | MLA
Found error?