Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-mzsfj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-21T12:41:01.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Geodetic and direct mass-balance measurements: comparison and joint analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

J. Graham Cogley*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario, K9J 7B8, Canada E-mail: gcogley@trentu.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper describes a new compilation of both direct and geodetic mass-balance measurements, develops a procedure to reduce diverse balance measurements over different time-spans to common time-spans, and presents updated estimates of global average balance of small glaciers based on the enlarged compilation. Although geodetic measurements are fewer than direct measurements, they cover four times as many balance years. Direct and geodetic measurements are unbiased with respect to one another, but differences are often substantial. The statistical procedure can be understood by imagining that an n-year balance measurement is an average of a series of 1 year measurements. The series is hypothetical but we can calculate the uncertainty of each of its elements if, in addition to its measured average, we can also estimate its standard deviation. For this claim to be valid, the annual series must be stationary and normally distributed with independent (roughly, uncorrelated) elements, for which there is reasonable evidence. The need to know the standard deviation means that annual direct measurements from a nearby glacier, or equally reliable information about variability, are indispensable. Given this information, the new methodology results in moderately more negative balances. This is probably because tidewater glaciers are better represented in the geodetic data. In any case, the most recent published estimate of global average balance, 0.8–1.0mma–1 of sea-level equivalent for 2001–04, is now increased substantially to 1.1–1.4 mma–1 for 2001–05.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) [year] 2009 
Figure 0

Table 1. Comparison of direct and geodetic mass-balance datasets

Figure 1

Fig. 1. Distribution of geodetic (G) and direct (D) measurements over time. Each geodetic measurement contributes up to five balance years to each of the pentads which it spans.

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Evolution of geodetically measured mass balance. (Note different balance-axis scales.) (a) The measurements for each glacier are plotted as a time series; 30 of 678 measurements lie beyond the range of the balance axis. (b) Pentadal arithmetic averages over all measured glaciers of G (circles, open for pentads with fewer than 10 measurements) and D (triangles, open for pentads with fewer than 100 annual measurements). Multi-annual measurements are counted in each of the pentads which they span. Vertical bars represent ±2 standard errors of each pentadal sample about its arithmetic average. The irregular dark grey envelope is a rendering of the estimates of Oerlemans and others 2007, (fig. 7).

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Relationship between 105 coincident geodetic and direct mass-balance measurements, G and D respectively, from 29 glaciers. Five pairs, all with large uncertainties in G, lie beyond the range of the axes. Error bars represent ±1 standard error. Open symbols: measurements shorter than 3 years.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Possible determinants of interannual variability of mass balance. (a) Predictability of standard deviation from pairs of direct-balance standard deviations separated by distance s (km). See text for details of seσ(s). (b) σd for series of D longer than 12 years (selected to avoid unreliable short-record σd) as a function of Tw, the free-air temperature at the ELA during the warmest month (see text for details). Best-fit line, σd = 465 + 55 Tw, derived by regression against single-glacier observations. Diamonds: class averages (class width 1°C).

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Pentadal calculations of global average mass balance, updating parts of figure 2 of Kaser and others (2006). Triangles: arithmetic averages of direct balance measurements (C05a of Kaser and others (2006), extended by completion of 2001–05 pentad. Circles: similarly extended averages with spatial interpolation from direct balance measurements to correct for spatial bias (equivalent to C05〉 of Kaser and others). Squares: averages with spatial interpolation from the combined direct and geodetic balance dataset introduced in this study, with grey confidence region representing ±2 standard errors about the mean.