Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-09T12:06:30.046Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Surge-related topographic change of the glacier Sortebræ, East Greenland, derived from synthetic aperture radar interferometry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Hamish Pritchard
Affiliation:
School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, England E-mail: h.pritchard@bas.ac.uk Department of Geography, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales
Tavi Murray
Affiliation:
School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, England E-mail: h.pritchard@bas.ac.uk
Tazio Strozzi
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales Gamma Remote Sensing, Thunstrasse 130, CH-3074 Muri (BE), Switzerland
Stuart Barr
Affiliation:
School of Geography, University of Leeds, Leeds LS2 9JT, England E-mail: h.pritchard@bas.ac.uk
Adrian Luckman
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Wales Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, Wales
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A major surge of the glacier complex of Sortebræ, East Greenland, occurred between 1992 and 1995. The impact of this surge on the topography of Sortebræ was examined through the production of a pre-surge (1981) digital elevation model (DEM) from interpolated digital map data, and a post-surge DEM from differential synthetic aperture radar interferometry using European Remote-sensing Satellite (ERS) imagery. The combined vertical error is typically 30–40 m; however, downdraw of up to 270 m in the reservoir zone, and uplift of up to 145 m in the receiving zone were measured. The upper glacier reservoir area discharged in excess of 24.3 ± 9.5 km3 volume over the surge, of which ∼12.5 km3 was stored in the advanced lower glacier, the balance being lost, predominantly to calving.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2003
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The Sortebræ complex and its location on the Blosseville Kyst of East Greenland. On-ice contours are shown for Sortebræ and tributaries only, and are those used for trend-surface generation. Contour interval is 100 m. Glacier names are unofficial, after Jiskoot (1999). Lines A–B, C–D, E–F and G–H represent the location of transects in Figures 4 and 5. Sortebræ map based on 1:100 000 topographic maps compiled by the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS), from 1981 aerial photographs and ground-control points supplied by the National Survey and Cadastre, Denmark.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Pre-surge trend-surface interpolated DEM of Sortebræ, with glacier outlines for context. Numbers in boxes are the mean absolute errors for each error zone, in vertical metres, produced by comparison of the trend surface with contours lying within each zone. The division of each trend surface into error zones is discussed in the text. Shading shows elevation in metres above datum; contour interval is 100 m, with trendsurface contours in white, original map contours in black (space prohibits labelling of all contours). Sortebræ map based on 1:100 000 topographic maps compiled by the GEUS, from 1981 aerial photographs and ground-control points supplied by the National Survey and Cadastre, Denmark.

Figure 2

Table 1. Trend-surface polynomial order and resulting rms fit to contours, and an estimate of the overall combined elevation error which would result from the differencing of the trend surface and InSAR DEMs (contour error (±10 m) is combined with trend-surface rms as a root-of-sum-of-squares, and the InSAR error (±20 m) is added to this)

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Post-surge InSAR DEM of Sortebræ. Crossed circles show the location of control points. Shading shows elevation in metres above datum; contour interval is 50 m. The detail inset (*) shows a section of the very short-baseline differential interferogram from the February and March InSAR pairs. The fringes visible indicate an acceleration of flow over this period, and contours here (dotted) are unreliable. Up-glacier of this, the interferogram is incoherent, and no fringes are present, a result of persistently fast flow in the Top Basin tributary.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Cross-profiles of elevation across (a) upper Sortebræ main trunk (between points C and D in Fig. 1); (b) midmain trunk (E–F; Fig. 1); (c) theadvanced front of Sortebræ (G–H; Fig. 1) (flow is out of page). UL denotes the Upper Loop flow unit, LL the Lower Loop unit, and TB the Top Basin unit, with arrows indicating the locations of principal medial moraines. The cross-profile of the advanced section (c) appears to reflect the basal topography rather than individual flow units.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Long profiles of the pre-surge (X) and post-surge (Y) elevation along the centre line of a section of the Lower Loop tributary, from point A to point B in Figure 1.The interpolated trend surface is depicted by X, with the magnitude of combined error associated with the fit to the contours and the contour error shown. Black dots show contour location. Y shows the wavy post-surge InSAR surface, with estimated error (it is not known whether waves existed in the pre-surge surface).

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Difference DEM showing the change in surface elevation resulting from the surge. Boxes give the volumes of ice lost and gained in each region in km3 . Shading shows surface elevation change in metres; contour interval is 70 m, the minimum interval given the estimated error (Kraus, 1993). The dashed lines show the 1992 (A) and1996 (B) margins; the dotted contour shows the zero-change line crossing the trunk between 200 and 300 m altitude (ELA is 1100–1200 m). On the main trunk, this defines the receiving zone, with the reservoir zone lying up-glacier of this. Slight thickening also occurred above the zero-change line on Sortebræ West. The step visible at the confluence of Lower Loop tributary results from the mismatch of the poorly constrained edges of two separate pre-surge trend surfaces at this point, although a genuine, less abrupt step also exists in the post-surge surface.

Figure 7

Table 2. The surge of Sortebræ compared to surges for which similar results are available (after Jiskoot, 1999)