Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A comparison of seismic and radar methods to establish the thickness and density of glacier snow cover
Stockholm University, Faculty of Science, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology.
Show others and affiliations
2013 (English)In: Annals of Glaciology, ISSN 0260-3055, E-ISSN 1727-5644, Vol. 54, no 64, 73-82 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

We show that geophysical methods offer an effective means of quantifying snow thickness and density. Opportunistic (efficient but non-optimized) seismic refraction and ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys were performed on Storglaciaren, Sweden, co-located with a snow pit that shows the snowpack to be 1.73 m thick, with density increasing from similar to 120 to similar to 500 kg m(-3) (with a +50 kg m(-3) anomaly between 0.73 and 0.83 m depth). Depths estimated for two detectable GPR reflectors, 0.76 +/- 0.02 and 1.71 +/- 0.03 m, correlate extremely well with ground-truth observations. Refraction seismic predicts an interface at 1.90 +/- 0.31 m depth, with a refraction velocity (3730 +/- 190 m s(-1)) indicative of underlying glacier ice. For density estimates, several standard velocity-density relationships are trialled. In the best case, GPR delivers an excellent density estimate for the upper snow layer (observed = 321 +/- 74 kg m(-3), estimated = 319 +/- 10 kg m(-3)) but overestimates the density of the lower layer by 20%. Refraction seismic delivers a bulk density of 404 +/- 22 kg m(-3) compared with a ground-truth average of 356 +/- 22 kg m(-3). We suggest that geophysical surveys are an effective complement to mass-balance measurements (particularly for controlling estimates of snow thickness between pits) but should always be validated against ground-truth observations.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2013. Vol. 54, no 64, 73-82 p.
National Category
Physical Geography Geosciences, Multidisciplinary
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:su:diva-95097DOI: 10.3189/2013AoG64A044ISI: 000324720300010OAI: oai:DiVA.org:su-95097DiVA: diva2:658550
Note

AuthorCount:6;

 

Funding Agencies:;

GLIMPSE project;  Leverhulme Trust; Climate Change Consortium of Wales (C3W)  Natural Environment Research Council of the UK NE/J500367/1; INTERACT under the European Community's Seventh Framework Programme 262693 

Available from: 2013-10-22 Created: 2013-10-21 Last updated: 2017-12-06Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Mercer, AndrewJansson, Peter
By organisation
Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology
In the same journal
Annals of Glaciology
Physical GeographyGeosciences, Multidisciplinary

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 259 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf