Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T12:07:42.398Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Glacier change and climate forcing in recent decades at Gran Campo Nevado, southernmost Patagonia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

M. Möller
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany E-mail: marco.moeller@geo.rwth-aachen.de
C. Schneider
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, RWTH Aachen University, D-52056 Aachen, Germany E-mail: marco.moeller@geo.rwth-aachen.de
R. Kilian
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences (FB VI), University of Trier, D-54286 Trier, Germany
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Digital terrain models of the southern Chilean ice cap Gran Campo Nevado reflecting the terrain situations of the years 1984 and 2000 were compared in order to obtain the volumetric glacier changes that had occurred during this period. The result shows a slightly negative mean glacier change of 3.80 m. The outlet glacier tongues show a massive thinning, whereas the centre of the ice cap is characterized by a moderate thickening. Thus a distinct altitudinal variability of the glacier change is noticed. Hypothetically this could be explained by the combined effects of increased precipitation and increased mean annual air temperature. Both to verify and to quantify this pattern of climatic change, the mean glacier change as well as its hypsometric variation are compared with the results of a degree-day model. The observed volumetric glacier change is traced back to possible climate forcing and can be linked to an underlying climate change that must be comparable with the effects of a precipitation offset of at least 7–8% and a temperature offset of around 0.3 K compared to the steady-state conditions in the period 1984–2000.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) [year] 2017
Figure 0

Fig. 1.Location of the GCN and terrain surface classification of the research area. Coordinates correspond to Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) zone 18S. AWS is the automated weather station located at Puerto Bahamondes at 28ma.s.l.

Figure 1

Fig. 2.Histograms of elevation change for glaciated and non-glaciated areas of the GCN.

Figure 2

Fig. 3.Mean elevation changes of the non-glaciated terrain surface depending on relief exposition.

Figure 3

Fig. 4.Areas of positive (DTM surface 2000 > DTM surface 1984) and negative (DTM surface 2000 < DTM surface 1984) elevation changes of the glacier surface as derived from the comparison of the two DTMs. Gaps resulting from areas of missing values in at least one of the underlying datasets are plotted as grey striped areas. Contour lines are placed at an equidistance of 250 m.

Figure 4

Fig. 5.Mean elevation changes of the glacier surface depending on altitude. Data points show error bars of rms error. The plotted lines represent a logarithmic (regression 1) and a polynomial (regression 2) fit to the data.

Figure 5

Fig. 6.Glacier surface change computed according to the regression analysis against altitude as presented in Figure 5. Contour lines are placed at an equidistance of 250 m.

Figure 6

Table 1.Comparison of ablation modelled with the DDM and ablation measured at stakes

Figure 7

Table 2.Annual mass-balance differences between DDM runs based on different starting conditions of the snow cover. Each snow pattern shows a specific variability throughout the transition zone between the ablation and accumulation zones. Snow depth is scaled linearly, using six classes between the stated upper and lower limits of altitude and snow depth. The pattern of the chosen model uses a starting snow cover of 0–500mmw.e. that is scaled between 300 and 700ma.s.l.

Figure 8

Fig. 7.Change of mass balance as a function of temperature and precipitation offsets for values of f as 6, 7 and 8mmK–1. Changes are computed in mmw.e. a–1 by adding constant values of temperature and precipitation changes to the input records of the DDM for the period September 2000–August 2005.

Figure 9

Fig. 8.Sensitivity of the specific mass-balance gradient of the GCN to different combinations of temperature and precipitation offsets according to Figure 7.