Abstract
AbstractThis work provides a comparison of four approaches that can be used to describe uncertainty in models of the long‐term glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) process. The four methods range from pessimistic to optimistic representations of GIA uncertainty. Each estimation method is applied to selected one dimensional GIA model predictions and compared with vertical land motion data from Global Positioning System (GPS) measurements across Fennoscandia and North America. The methods are evaluated relative to two main properties: (1) their expected ability to separate non‐GIA from GIA signals and (2) their estimated statistical appropriateness given a specific GIA model and data set. For the first point, non‐GIA signals are considered isolated from the long‐term (millennial time scale) GIA signal at sites where measurement and model uncertainties do not overlap. Across methods, the frequency and accuracy with which non‐GIA signals are separated from GIA signals in GPS data display both consistent similarities and disparities. For the second point, we compare model predictions with rates of vertical land motion and relative sea level change that have been cleaned of non‐GIA signals to determine the most appropriate value of model uncertainty and relate the findings to the four approaches. Best fit inferences suggest that within deglaciation centers, GIA model uncertainty is up to ~2 mm/yr (vertical land motion). Likewise, away from the former ice sheet centers, GIA uncertainty for relative sea level change is inferred to be ~0.3–0.5 mm/yr along the U.S. East Coast and ~0.6–0.8 mm/yr in the North Sea.
Highlights
A well‐known issue in modeling of the longer‐term viscous glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) response of the solid Earth is the coupled dependence of the solution on both Earth model parameters and ice sheet parameters
We compare model predictions with rates of vertical land motion and relative sea level change that have been cleaned of non‐GIA signals to determine the most appropriate value of model uncertainty and relate the findings to the four approaches
We examine three variants of the modeled GIA signal over Scandinavia and two variants over North America: ICE‐6G_C (Argus et al, 2014; Peltier et al, 2015), a variation of the Australian National University (ANU) ice sheet model (Lambeck, 1995; Lambeck et al, 2010), and the D1 semiempirical model (Simon et al, 2017, 2018) (Figures 1a–1e)
Summary
A well‐known issue in modeling of the longer‐term viscous glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) response of the solid Earth is the coupled dependence of the solution on both Earth model parameters and ice sheet parameters. We distinguish here between long‐term or paleo‐GIA and contemporary isostatic adjustments driven by recent cryospheric change The former represents the millennial time scale relaxation response of the Earth to loading and unloading during Pleistocene glaciations (e.g., Peltier & Andrews, 1976; Tamisiea, 2011; Wu & Peltier, 1982), whereas the latter describes the Earth's annual to decadal response to present‐day melting of glaciers and ice sheets (Mitrovica et al, 2001). Both long‐term GIA and shorter‐term isostatic adjustments can be important contributors to present‐day vertical motion and sea level change at local scales
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
