The launch of ERS-l provides coverage, by satellite altimetry, of a large part of the Ross Ice Shelf ineluding areas of input from Byrd Glacier and Ice Streams D and E. Five 35 d repeats of fast-delivery data, comprising approximately 100000 height estimates, have been used to produce a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) of the Ross Icc Shelf north of 81.5° S. Careful filtering of the altimeter data, which removed about 30% of the measurements, ensured that only valid values were used. The data were grldded to produce a DEM with a cell size of 10km. Repeatability of the data was assessed from an analysis of crossing points of ascending and descending tracks. The rms cross-over difference for the ice shelf was 0.94 m. Using the five repeat tracks gave a random error of 0.30 m for an averaged height measurement. Regionally correlated errors in the orbit and geoid add a systematic long wavelength bias of approximately 2m to the final elevation estimate. Two of the latest geoid models, OSU91-A and JGMI, were compared with the available in situ data and hYdrostatic models based on ice and water densities. The altimetry was compared with ice-thickness data from Ross Icc Shelf Geophysical and Glaciological Survey (RIGGS) stations and Scott Polar Research Institute radio-echo-sounding surveys undertaken in the 1970s. Differences between the DEM and heights calculated from ice thicknesses and a standard density -depth equation lie, in general, within the combined measurement errors. There are, however, several areas where this is not the case. Prominent north-south stripes of different ice thickness shown on a RIGGS map apparently do not exist. Low elevations are associated with high-density ice draining from East Antarctic outlet glaciers. The grounding line of Icc Streams D and E and an ice plain behind it are clearly demarcated by the break in surface slope. Grounded ice north of Steershead is also observed
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jonathan et al. (1994) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: