the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
A Simulation Approach to Characterizing Sub-Glacial Hydrology
Chris Pierce
Christopher Gerekos
Mark Skidmore
Lucas Beem
Don Blankenship
Won Sang Lee
Ed Adams
Choon-Ki Lee
Jamey Stutz
Abstract. The structure and distribution of sub-glacial water directly influences Antarctic ice mass loss by reducing basal shear stress and enhancing grounding line retreat. A common technique for detecting sub-glacial water involves analyzing the spatial variation in reflectivity from an airborne ice penetrating radar (IPR) survey. Basic IPR analysis exploits the high dielectric contrast between water and most other substrate materials, where a reflectivity increase ≥ 15 dB is frequently correlated with the presence of sub-glacial water. There are surprisingly few additional tools to further characterize the size, shape, or extent of hydrological systems beneath large ice masses.
We adapted an existing radar backscattering simulator to model IPR reflections from sub-glacial water structures using the University of Texas Institute for Geophysics (UTIG) Multifrequency Airborne Radar Sounder with Full-phase Assessment (MARFA) instrument. Our series of hypothetical simulations modeled water structures from 5 m to 50 m wide, surrounded by bed materials of varying roughness. We compared the relative reflectivity from rounded Röthlisberger channels and specular flat canals, showing both types of channels exhibit a positive correlation between size and reflectivity. Large (> 20 m), flat canals can increase reflectivity by more than 20 dB, while equivalent Röthlisberger channels show only modest reflectivity gains of 8−13 dB. Changes in substrate roughness may also alter observed reflectivity by 3−6 dB. All of these results indicate that a sophisticated approach to IPR interpretation can be useful in constraining the size and shape of sub-glacial water, however a highly nuanced treatment of the geometric context is necessary.
Finally, we compared simulated outputs to actual reflectivity from a single IPR flight line collected over Thwaites Glacier in 2022. The flight line crosses a previously proposed Röthlisberger channel route, with an obvious bright bed reflection in the radargram. Through multiple simulations, we demonstrated the important role that topography and water geometry can play in observed IPR reflectivity. We ultimately conclude the bright reflector from our IPR flight line is more likely a broad area of wide distributed water, such as a series of flat canals or sub-glacial lake, instead of a Röthlisberger channel. The approach outlined here has broad applicability for studying the basal environment of large glaciers, and can aid in constraining the geometry and extent of sub-glacial hydrologic structures.
- Preprint
(2234 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Chris Pierce et al.
Status: open (until 11 Oct 2023)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-1685', Anonymous Referee #1, 01 Sep 2023
reply
The manuscript presents an interesting combination of electromagnetic modeling and radar data analysis across a modeled drainage pathway for Thwaites Glacier. The results have the potential to make an important contribution to our understanding of the glaciers subglacial hydrology, but the analysis, as written, has several issues that would need to be addressed first to reconcile the results, methods, and claims in the paper.
Major Issues:
The range of material properties for the bed and water used in the study seem too narrow given the literature cited in the paper. For example, Peters 2005 included reflectivity differences between water (including groundwater) and frozen bedrock that differ by 26 dB without invoking any change in bed roughness or geometry. If you look at Christiansen 2016 and Tulaczyk and Foley 2020 (https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-14-4495-2020) these values are also in the 25 - 27 dB range. If the manuscript seeks to diagnose the subglacial water configuration by excluding other hypotheses, then the complex permittivity for both water and the bed explored should span the full range of this literature (and reproduce that range of reflectivities).
Similarly, the range of bed roughness considered in the study is also small compared to the literature cited by the paper. Again, Peter 2005 shows roughness-based reduction in reflectivities that are as high as 20 dB. For the reasons described above, I’d expect this paper to explore roughesses losses at that scale as well.
The authors present a simulation that is focusable (and focused) which should allow them to probe the specularity of bed echoes for each of the hypothesized configurations. Since, as the paper mentions, this was the key observable in classifying the downstream water system of Thwaites as concentrated rather than distributed, it would seem incumbent on the authors to address whether their interpretations of the (inherently more ambiguous) reflectivity signal would also explain that larger catchment-wide specularity signature.
Line 180: The authors state that they “confine” themselves to Röthlisberger channels and flat canals for this study. That is a fine choice to support the claim (if it survives addressing the issues raised above) that the bright spot (and downstream water network) is likely not a canonical Röthlisberger channel. However, in order to claim (as the authors do in their abstract and conclusion) that the wanted body is “distributed” (which has a specific subglacial hydrological meaning and implication for modeling) they would need to also address other “concentrated” water geometries and exclude them as well. These include Nye Channels, Creytes & Schoof water sheets (https://doi.org/10.1029/2008JF001215) an other concentrated/efficient water configurations (https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.2014.0907). Otherwise the authors should limit themselves to falsifying the hypothesis that the bright echo on THW2/UBH0c/X243a is a canonical Röthlisberger channel and remove language like “We ultimately conclude the bright reflector from our IPR flight line is more likely a broad area
20 of wide distributed water, such as a series of flat canals or sub-glacial lake” which cannot be supported by a study that does not consider other “concentrated " water geometries.
Minor Issues:
Abstract Line 1: Depending on its configuration water can either enhance or reduce sliding and/or retreat.
Abstract Line 3: Given the recent paper by Schlegel et al. ( https://doi.org/10.1017/aog.2023.2) you may want to consider the use of IPR here.
Table 1: 1.71 MW seems like an extremely high value. It’s unusual to report a post-processing number for transmit power and presenting it in this way could confuse readers significantly.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-1685-RC1
Chris Pierce et al.
Chris Pierce et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
164 | 55 | 7 | 226 | 5 | 4 |
- HTML: 164
- PDF: 55
- XML: 7
- Total: 226
- BibTeX: 5
- EndNote: 4
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1