Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kl59c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-17T08:39:09.144Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Hydrometeorological relationships on Haig Glacier, Alberta, Canada

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

F.S. Anslow
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada, E-mail: jmshea@interchange.ubc.ca
S.J. Marshall
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta T2N 1N4, Canada, E-mail: jmshea@interchange.ubc.ca
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We investigate the relationships between meteorological, hydrological and glaciological data collected at Haig Glacier, Alberta, Canada, for the 2002 and 2003 ablation seasons. Correlation, lag cross-correlation and multivariate regression analyses are employed to assess the seasonal evolution of relationships between temperature, temperature residuals, total daily radiation, albedo, accumulation-area ratio (AAR) and total daily discharge (Qi ). Early-season melt is temperature-dependent, when AAR remains high and the hydraulic properties of the snowpack limit both diurnal discharge variability and a rapid hydrologic response. As the melt season progresses, a decreasing AAR and ripening of the snowpack induce a glacier-wide decrease in albedo, and a structured radiation–discharge response is observed. Radiation-detrended temperature values offer modest improvements over physical temperature values in multivariate regression models estimating daily discharge values. Using a detrended-temperature indexed melt model, we assess the transport efficiency of the glacial hydrologic system through a comparison of total modelled daily melt and observed discharge. Transport efficiency values support the notion of a purge effect during freezing events and at the end of the ablation season, and suggest that it is the evolution of the supraglacial drainage system that controls diurnal discharge variability.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) [year] 2005
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Study area showing location of Haig Glacier (inset), automatic weather stations (squares), ablation-stake locations (solid dots), mass-balance density pits (open circles) and stream gauge (×). Bedrock contours in ma.s.l.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Summary of upper-AWS meteorological data: (a) daily average surface height (relative to end of summer 2002); (b) 5 day running mean temperature; (c) average daily incoming (dark curve) and outgoing (light curve) shortwave radiation; and (d) 5 day running mean of average daily albedo (calculated between 1000 and 1600 h).

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Scatter plot of half-hour incoming and outgoing solar radiation for points between 1000 and 1600 h, May 2002V September 2003.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. 30 min averages of discharge from Haig Glacier proglacial stream (top) and flow indices Qb, Qsr, Qi (bottom) for the 2002 and 2003 ablation seasons.

Figure 4

Table 1. Haig Glacier mass-balance values (mm.w.e.) for 2002 and 2003 mass-balance years

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Radiation, observed temperatures, predicted temperatures and residual values for the 2003 ablation season. A small amount of correlation between the residuals and the radiation series still exists (Table 3).

Figure 6

Table 2. Lag cross-correlation r values for discharge vs radiation and temperature in 2002 and 2003 ablation seasons

Figure 7

Fig. 6. Daily lag/lead for temperature, radiation and discharge, 2002 and 2003 ablation seasons, with plotted glacier average albedo and AAR. Shaded areas indicate that discharge leads the variable in question (hence the relationship is null).

Figure 8

Table 3. 2002 and 2003 ablation season correlation matrix foraverage discharge (Qi), average daily temperature (T), total daily insolation (Kt), AAR, daily detrended temperature (DT), daily standardized discharge range (Sqr) and previous day’s average discharge (Qi–1)

Figure 9

Table 4. Multivariate regression summary

Figure 10

Table 5. Comparison of ablation season multivariate regression coefficients, with regression coefficient (R2) and standard error (SE)

Figure 11

Table 6. Summary of preferred regression model coefficients for constant (b) detrended temperature (bDT), radiation (bK), AAR (bAAR) and previous day’s mean discharge (bQi-1 ). For comparison between ablation seasons, the same regression models for 2002 and 2003 are shown sequentially

Figure 12

Fig. 7. (a) Total daily modelled melt and total daily discharge; (b) transport efficiency; (c) daily precipitation total; and (d) AAR.