Geology ReportsSearch

USGS · 70207166

Interannual snow accumulation variability on glaciers derived from repeat spatially extensive ground-penetrating radar surveys

Abstract

There is significant uncertainty regarding the spatiotemporal distribution of seasonal snow on glaciers, despite being a fundamental component of glacier mass balance. To address this knowledge gap, we collected repeat, spatially extensive high-frequency ground-penetrating radar (GPR) observations on two glaciers in Alaska for five consecutive years. GPR measurements showed steep snow water equivalent (SWE) elevation gradients at both sites; continental Gulkana Glacier’s SWE gradient averaged 115 mm 100 m–1 and maritime Wolverine Glacier’s gradient averaged 440 mm 100 m–1 (over >1000 m). We extrapolated GPR point observations across the glacier surface using terrain parameters derived from digital elevation models as predictor variables in two statistical models (stepwise multivariable linear regression and regression trees). Elevation and proxies for wind redistribution had the greatest explanatory power, and exhibited relatively time-constant coefficients over the study period. Both statistical models yielded comparable estimates of glacier-wide average SWE (1 % average difference at Gulkana, 4 % average difference at Wolverine), although the spatial distributions produced by the models diverged in unsampled regions of the glacier, particularly at Wolverine. In total, six different methods for estimating the glacier-wide average agreed within ± 11 %. We assessed interannual variability in the spatial pattern of snow accumulation predicted by the statistical models using two quantitative metrics. Both glaciers exhibited a high degree of temporal stability, with ~85 % of the glacier area experiencing less than 25 % normalized absolute variability over this five-year interval. We found SWE at a sparse network (3 stakes per glacier) of long-term glaciological stake sites to be highly correlated with the GPR-derived glacier-wide average. We estimate that interannual variability in the spatial pattern of SWE is only a small component (4–10 % of glacier-wide average) of the total mass balance uncertainty and thus, our findings support the concept that sparse stake networks effectively measure interannual variability in winter balance on glaciers, rather than some spatially varying pattern of snow accumulation.

Explore related subjects

90° N90° S · 180° W ← longitude → 180° E
Source-reported bounding extent: 58.21702494960191° to 64.28275952823394° latitude; -153.80859375° to -140.888671875° longitude. This indicates report coverage, not an exact sampling location. View area on OpenStreetMap.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Daniel McGrath, Louis Sass, Shad O’Neel, Christopher J. McNeil, Salvatore G Candela, Emily Baker, Hans P. Marshall. 2018-11-22. Interannual snow accumulation variability on glaciers derived from repeat spatially extensive ground-penetrating radar surveys. https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-12-3617-2018

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

Evaluating snow depth measurements from ground-penetrating radar and airborne lidar in boreal forest and tundra environments during the NASA SnowEx 2023 campaign

Snow is a vital component of high-latitude terrestrial systems, but environmental factors (e.g., permafrost) and complex vegetation challenge the accurate measurement of key snowpack properties. We evaluated local-scale ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and large-scale airborne lidar retrievals of snow depth collected during the NASA SnowEx 2023 campaign in tundra and boreal forest environments in Alaska along 44 short (3–12 m) transects. Compared to in situ observations, we identified modest biases for GPR snow depths (bias <0.03 m in tundra, +0.06 m in boreal forests) and larger biases for lidar snow depths in the boreal forests (–0.16 m). At the Upper Kuparuk-Toolik tundra site, lidar snow depths exhibited a small bias (–0.02 m), whereas the bias was much larger at the Arctic Coastal Plain tundra site (+0.19 m). For most sites, biases were primarily related to sub-snow vegetation, tussocks, and seasonally dynamic ground. However, we identified vertical alignment issues with the Arctic Coastal Plain lidar snow depth dataset that likely contributed to the higher bias. The complex ground surface and sub-snow vegetation in these environments present a challenge to established snow depth measurement methods, which needs to be considered when evaluating novel remote sensing approaches.

Alaska

Brief communication: Not as dirty as they look, flawed airborne and satellite snow spectra

Key to the success of spaceborne missions is understanding snowmelt in our warming climate, as this has implications for nearly 2 billion people. An obstacle is that surface reflectance products over snow show an erroneous hook with decreases in the visible wavelengths, causing per-band and broadband reflectance errors of up to 33 % and 11 %, respectively. This hook is sometimes mistaken for soot or dust but can result from three artifacts: (1) background reflectance that is too dark, (2) an assumption of level terrain, or (3) differences in optical constants of ice. Sensor calibration and directional effects may also contribute. Solutions are being implemented.

The Cryosphere

Automated snow cover detection on mountain glaciers usingspaceborne imagery and machine learning

Tracking the extent of seasonal snow on glaciers over time is critical for assessing glacier vulnerability and the response of glacierized watersheds to climate change. Existing snow cover products do not reliably distinguish seasonal snow from glacier ice and firn, preventing their use for glacier snow cover detection. Despite previous efforts to classify glacier surface facies using machine learning on local scales, currently there is no published comparison of machine learning models for classifying glacier snow cover across different satellite image products. We present an automated snow detection workflow for mountain glaciers using supervised machine-learning-based image classifiers and Landsat 8 and 9, Sentinel-2, and PlanetScope satellite imagery. We develop the image classifiers by testing numerous machine learning algorithms with training and validation data from the U.S. Geological Survey Benchmark Glacier Project glaciers. The workflow produces daily to twice monthly time series of several glacier mass balance and snowmelt indicators (snow-covered area, accumulation area ratio, and seasonal snow line) from 2013 to present. Workflow performance is assessed by comparing automatically classified images and snow lines to manual interpretations at each glacier site. The image classifiers exhibit overall accuracies of 92%–98%, K scores of 84%–96%, and F scores of 93%–98% for all image products. The median difference between automatically and manually delineated median snow line altitudes is 31m (IQR of 73to0m)across all image products. The Sentinel-2 classifier (support vector machine) produces the most accurate glacier mass balance and snowmelt indicators and distinguishes snow from ice and f irn the most reliably. Although they are less accurate, the Landsat- and PlanetScope-derived estimates greatly enhance the temporal coverage of observations. The transient accumulation area ratio produces the least noisy time series, making it the most reliable indicator for characterizing seasonal snow trends. The temporally detailed accumulation area ratio time series reveal that the timing of minimum snow cover conditions varies by up to a month between Arctic (63°N) and midlatitude (48°N) sites, underscoring the potential for bias when estimating glacier minimum snow cover conditions from a single late-summer image. Widespread application of our automated snow detection workflow has the potential to improve regional assessments of glacier mass balance, land ice representations within Earth system models, water resources, and the impacts of climate change on snow cover across broad spatial scales.

The Cryosphere