Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T11:13:00.647Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The cavity under the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

B.K. Galton-Fenzi
Affiliation:
Centre for Marine Science, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 80, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia E-mail: bkgalton@utas.edu.au CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Box 252-80, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
C. Maraldi
Affiliation:
Legos, 18 av. Edouard Belin, 31401 Toulouse Cedex, France
R. Coleman
Affiliation:
Centre for Marine Science, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 80, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia E-mail: bkgalton@utas.edu.au CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research, Box 1538, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Box 252-80, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
J. Hunter
Affiliation:
Centre for Marine Science, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 80, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia E-mail: bkgalton@utas.edu.au Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Box 252-80, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ocean circulation under ice shelves and associated rates of melting and freezing are strongly influenced by the shape of the sub-ice-shelf cavity. We have refined an existing method and used additional in situ measurements to estimate the cavity shape under the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica. A finite-element hydrodynamic ocean-tide model was used to simulate the major tidal constituents for a range of different sub-Amery Ice Shelf cavity water-column thicknesses. The data are adjusted in the largely unsurveyed southern region of the ice-shelf cavity by comparing the complex error between simulated tides and in situ tides, derived from GPS observations. We show a significant improvement in the simulated tides, with a combined complex error of 1.8 cm, in comparison with past studies which show a complex error of ∼5.3 cm. Our bathymetry incorporates ice-draft data at the grounding line and seismic surveys, which have provided a considerable amount of new data. This technique has particular application when the water column beneath ice shelves is inaccessible and in situ GPS data are available.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2008
Figure 0

Fig. 1. The location of Amery Ice Shelf and Prydz Bay in East Antarctica (black box in inset). (a) The bathymetry data used in the interpolation: black dots show the location of the seismic data, the grey curve shows the ice-draft data taken at the grounding line and the dashed grey curve in the southern region of the AIS is the prescribed channel centre line. (b) The locations of the 11 GPS observation sites and major features of the Amery Ice Shelf region.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Ice draft of the AIS showing 200 m contour intervals.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Vertical sections along transects (a) south–north and (b) east–west as shown in the inset. Ten possible choices of bathymetry are shown. The best estimate is the black dashed curve. Each bathymetric choice was created by varying the thickness of the water column below the ice shelf along the dashed grey curve shown in Figure 1a. The intersection point of the two transects is shown in (a) and (b) by a vertical black line.

Figure 3

Table 1. The complex error, ∊ (cm) for this study (TS) and Hemer and others (2006) (H06) for GPS sites 1–11. The bottom row is the root-mean-square value calculated over sites 1–10. Site 11 is excluded from the rms calculation as it lies in the ice-shelf flexure zone

Figure 4

Fig. 4. The sum of the rms complex errors for the four major tides compared with the mean WCT calculated over the AIS, for (a) the sum of records 1–10, (b) records 1–7, (c) records 8–10 and (d) record 11. Note that record 11 lies within the ice-shelf flexure zone, which acts to damp the tidal amplitude, thereby increasing the complex error, and so was not included in (a).

Figure 5

Fig. 5. (a) The resulting bathymetry of the AIS and Prydz Bay regions showing 200m contour intervals. (b) Difference between this bathymetry and that of Hemer and others (2006), the extra area included in this study indicated as spotted dark grey, and the extra area used by Hemer and others (2006) shown as light grey (i.e. in some regions near the grounding line such as in Beaver Lake).