You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
+ 65 Gt/yr from Pattyn (2010) http://doi.org/10.1016/j.epsl.2010.04.025
109
-
+ If split by area, its 25 % vs 75 %
110
-
+ Better: Split by weighted geothermal heat for E v W Antarctica
111
-
+ This is still (somewhat) weighted by area. Neglects 0 basal melt in areas when ice sheet is frozen to the bed. Neglects frictional heating differences between E & W.
108
+
Van Liefferinge (2013) http://doi.org/10.5194/cp-9-2335-2013
Copy file name to clipboardExpand all lines: ms.tex
+1-4Lines changed: 1 addition & 4 deletions
Original file line number
Diff line number
Diff line change
@@ -93,8 +93,6 @@ \section{Methods}
93
93
94
94
In Antarctica, we use the MEaSUREs Antarctic Boundaries for IPY 2007-2009 from Satellite Radar, Version 2 (NSIDC product 0709; \citet{mouginot_2017,rignot_2013}) to separate Antarctica into East, West, and Peninsula. We drop all unattached islands, so the sum of the regional terms may not equal the total Antarctic values in Fig. \ref{fig}.
95
95
96
-
Most existing estimates are provided with enough geospatial metadata that we simply assign flow estimates to the appropriate region. However, we do not have access to the basal mass balance for Antarctica in spatial map form, only a total Antarctic-wide value from \citet{pattyn_2010} reported at 65 Gt yr$^{-1}$. To estimate basal melt for East and West Antarctica, we scale by the magnitude of geothermal heat flux (from \citet{shapiro_2004}) scaled by area for East, West, and Peninsula which is 70 \%, 25 \%, and 5 \% respectively. This is slightly better than scaling by area alone which has 75 \% of the area in East Antarctica. This method neglects the contribution of shear heating (ice velocity) when partitioning basal melt.
0 commit comments