4.7 Article

Heterogeneous decadal glacier downwasting at the Mt. Everest (Qomolangma) from 2000 to ∼ 2012 based on multi-baseline bistatic SAR interferometry

期刊

REMOTE SENSING OF ENVIRONMENT
卷 206, 期 -, 页码 336-349

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.rse.2017.12.032

关键词

Everest; Geodetic glacier mass balance; Rongbuk; TerraSAR-X/TanDEM-X; Bistatic D-InSAR

资金

  1. National Basic Research Program of China [2015CB954103]
  2. Research Grants Council (RGC)
  3. General Research Fund of HKSAR, China (CUHK) [14233016]
  4. National Key R & D Program of China [2017YFA0603103]
  5. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41431070, 41590854, 41621091]
  6. German Aerospace Center (DLR) [XTI_GLAC6924]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Remote sensing based geodetic observations can be used as alternatives data to map glacier height changes because the harsh environment complicates in situ observations. In this study, we analysed five pairs of X-band bistatic TerraSAR-X/TanDEM-X images from 2011 and 2014 for Mt. Everest (Qomolangma). Glacier height changes were derived using the D-InSAR method respect to SRTM DEM of 2000. An iterative D-InSAR method using multi -baseline bistatic SAR interferograms was employed, which increased reliability and accuracy of glacier height changing observations. From 2000 to similar to 2012, the geodetic glacier mass balance for the Mt. Everest and the surrounding region was - 0.38 +/- 0.04 m w.e. a(-1). The spatial pattern of the glacier mass loss was heterogeneous. The regional heterogeneity may possibly reflect debris-covering rates, terminating type, temperature rising rates and glacier flow rates. Comparison to long-period geodetic glacier mass balance data provided by previous studies since 1970 revealed that our results showed more rapid increases in the glacier mass loss rates after 2000 in the area around Khumbu Glacier in the southern slope of the Mt. Everest, whereas glacier mass loss rates kept stable in the Rongbuk Catchment at its northern slope.

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

4.7
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