4.4 Article

Distributed mass-balance modelling on two neighbouring glaciers in Ortles-Cevedale, Italy, from 2004 to 2009

期刊

JOURNAL OF GLACIOLOGY
卷 58, 期 209, 页码 467-486

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.3189/2012JoG11J111

关键词

-

资金

  1. Comitato Glaciologico Trentino - SAT
  2. ENEL SPA
  3. Provincia Autonoma di Trento
  4. Museo Tridentino di Scienze Naturali
  5. Universita di Trento
  6. Universita degli Studi di Padova (UNIPD)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A 6 year application of an enhanced temperature-index mass-balance model to Careser and La Mare glaciers, Eastern Italian Alps, is presented. The two glaciers exhibit very different characteristics, and a comprehensive dataset of distributed mass-balance measurements was used to test the model performance. The model was run using meteorological data acquired outside the glaciers. The work was focused on two main aspects: (1) the development of a morphological redistribution procedure for snow, and (2) the comparison of three different melt algorithms proposed in the literature. The results show that the simple method proposed for snow redistribution can greatly improve simulation of winter balance, and further improvements would be achievable by collecting data on inaccessible and high-altitude areas. All three melt formulations displayed a good skill level and very similar results in modelling the mass-balance distribution over glacier areas, with slightly better results from a multiplicative algorithm in capturing the vertical balance gradient. The simulation errors are related to aspect and elevation, and tend to be spatially aggregated. Some assumptions concerning the spatial and temporal distribution of air temperature and incoming solar radiation, although reasonable and widely used in the literature, may be responsible for this aggregation. Hence, there is a need to further investigate the processes that regulate the distribution of melt energy, and that appear to control the current deglaciation phase in this area.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据