Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-g96k6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T06:20:34.458Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Volume–area scaling vs flowline modelling in glacier volume projections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

Valentina Radić
Affiliation:
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, SE-106 91 Stockholm, Sweden E-mail: valentina.radic@natgeo.su.se Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, 903 Koyukuk Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA
Regine Hock
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska, 903 Koyukuk Drive, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA Department of Earth Sciences, Uppsala University, Villavägen 16, SE-752 36 Uppsala, Sweden
Johannes Oerlemans
Affiliation:
Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht, University of Utrecht, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Volume–area scaling provides a practical alternative to ice-flow modelling to account for glacier size changes when modelling the future evolution of glaciers; however, uncertainties remain as to the validity of this approach under non-steady conditions. We address these uncertainties by deriving scaling exponents in the volume–area relationship from one-dimensional ice-flow modelling. We generate a set of 37 synthetic steady-state glaciers of different sizes, and then model their volume evolution due to climate warming and cooling as prescribed by negative and positive mass-balance perturbations, respectively, on a century timescale. The scaling exponent derived for the steady-state glaciers (γ = 1.56) differs from the exponents derived for the glaciers in transient (non-steady) state by up to 86%. Nevertheless, volume projections employing volume–area scaling are relatively insensitive to these differences in scaling exponents. Volume–area scaling agrees well with the results from ice-flow modelling. In addition, the scaling method is able to simulate the approach of a glacier to a new steady state, if mass-balance elevation feedback is approximated by removing or adding elevation bands at the lowest part of the glacier as the glacier retreats or advances. If area changes are approximated in the mass-balance computations in this way, our results indicate that volume–area scaling is a powerful tool for glacier volume projections on multi-century timescales.

Information

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

Fig. 1. Mass-balance profile b(h) = –1.45×10–6h2 + 0.0085h –9.5, where h is elevation (m a.s.l.), and its approximation with the profile b(x) = –3.564×10–8x2 + 1.614, where x is length along the flowline (m). The profile generated the synthetic glacier with area A = 31.64 km2 and V = 4.08 km3.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Log–log plot of volume V vs area A for 37 synthetic glaciers in steady state with a regression log V = 1.56 logA – 2.11 (r2 = 0.999).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Surface area evolution derived from the flowline model as a response to the perturbation of db(0) = –0.015ma–1.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Log–log plot of volume vs area for 24 volume (area) evolutions as a response to different mass-balance perturbations. Each evolution contains 50 values of V and A. For each evolution we derived a regression log V = γ log A+ k in order to determine the scaling exponent γ.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Normalized volume evolutions of the largest test glacier responding to the mass-balance perturbation of db(0) = + 0.015 ma–1 (‘cooling scenario’) and db(0) = –0.015ma–1 (‘warming scenario’). In (a) and (c) the three methods correspond to three different ways of calculating area-averaged net mass-balance and volume changes: the ‘reference surface’ mass balance without volume–area scaling (method a), the ‘reference surface’ mass balance with scaling (method b) and the ‘conventional’ mass balance with scaling (method c). Scaling exponent γ = 1.56 is used in the volume–area relationship. In (b) volume evolutions are derived from scaling method (c) using three different scaling exponents: γ = 1.56 derived from our 37 synthetic steady-state glaciers, γ = 2.27 (1.89) derived from the transient response to warming (cooling) of this test glacier, and γ = 1.375 derived theoretically by Bahr and others (1997). In (c) the test glacier is in non-steady state prior to the mass-balance perturbation.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. Evolution of area-averaged mass balance b (a, c) and normalized glacier volume V (b, d) derived from the flowline model and from the scaling methods. Initial perturbation is db(0) = 0.015 ma–1 (cooling scenario) and db(0) = –0.015ma–1 (warming scenario). Scaling methods (a) and (b) are based on ‘reference surface’ mass balances, and scaling method (c) is based on ‘conventional’ mass balances as also in the flowline model.