Sensitivity of glacier volume change estimation to DEM void interpolation
<p>Glacier mass balance has been estimated on individual glacier and regional scales using repeat digital elevation models (DEMs). DEMs often have gaps in coverage (“voids”), the properties of which depend on the nature of the sensor used and the surface being measured. The way that these void...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Copernicus Publications
2019-03-01
|
| Series: | The Cryosphere |
| Online Access: | https://www.the-cryosphere.net/13/895/2019/tc-13-895-2019.pdf |
| _version_ | 1811338425417072640 |
|---|---|
| author | R. McNabb C. Nuth A. Kääb L. Girod |
| author_facet | R. McNabb C. Nuth A. Kääb L. Girod |
| author_sort | R. McNabb |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | <p>Glacier mass balance has been estimated on individual glacier and regional
scales using repeat digital elevation models (DEMs). DEMs often have gaps in
coverage (“voids”), the properties of which depend on the nature of the
sensor used and the surface being measured. The way that these voids are
accounted for has a direct impact on the estimate of geodetic glacier mass
balance, though a systematic comparison of different proposed methods has
been heretofore lacking. In this study, we determine the impact and
sensitivity of void interpolation methods on estimates of volume change.
Using two spatially complete, high-resolution DEMs over southeast Alaska,
USA, we artificially generate voids in one of the DEMs using correlation
values derived from photogrammetric processing of Advanced Spaceborne Thermal
Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) scenes. We then compare 11
different void interpolation methods on a glacier-by-glacier and regional
basis. We find that a few methods introduce biases of up to 20 % in the
regional results, while other methods give results very close (<span class="inline-formula"><1</span> %
difference) to the true, non-voided volume change estimates. By comparing
results from a few of the best-performing methods, an estimate of the
uncertainty introduced by interpolating voids can be obtained. Finally, by
increasing the number of voids, we show that with these best-performing
methods, reliable estimates of glacier-wide volume change can be obtained,
even with sparse DEM coverage.</p> |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-13T18:09:36Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-b6de943033f944a7910d44efe18e26cb |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1994-0416 1994-0424 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-13T18:09:36Z |
| publishDate | 2019-03-01 |
| publisher | Copernicus Publications |
| record_format | Article |
| series | The Cryosphere |
| spelling | doaj.art-b6de943033f944a7910d44efe18e26cb2022-12-22T02:35:56ZengCopernicus PublicationsThe Cryosphere1994-04161994-04242019-03-011389591010.5194/tc-13-895-2019Sensitivity of glacier volume change estimation to DEM void interpolationR. McNabbC. NuthA. KääbL. Girod<p>Glacier mass balance has been estimated on individual glacier and regional scales using repeat digital elevation models (DEMs). DEMs often have gaps in coverage (“voids”), the properties of which depend on the nature of the sensor used and the surface being measured. The way that these voids are accounted for has a direct impact on the estimate of geodetic glacier mass balance, though a systematic comparison of different proposed methods has been heretofore lacking. In this study, we determine the impact and sensitivity of void interpolation methods on estimates of volume change. Using two spatially complete, high-resolution DEMs over southeast Alaska, USA, we artificially generate voids in one of the DEMs using correlation values derived from photogrammetric processing of Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) scenes. We then compare 11 different void interpolation methods on a glacier-by-glacier and regional basis. We find that a few methods introduce biases of up to 20 % in the regional results, while other methods give results very close (<span class="inline-formula"><1</span> % difference) to the true, non-voided volume change estimates. By comparing results from a few of the best-performing methods, an estimate of the uncertainty introduced by interpolating voids can be obtained. Finally, by increasing the number of voids, we show that with these best-performing methods, reliable estimates of glacier-wide volume change can be obtained, even with sparse DEM coverage.</p>https://www.the-cryosphere.net/13/895/2019/tc-13-895-2019.pdf |
| spellingShingle | R. McNabb C. Nuth A. Kääb L. Girod Sensitivity of glacier volume change estimation to DEM void interpolation The Cryosphere |
| title | Sensitivity of glacier volume change estimation to DEM void interpolation |
| title_full | Sensitivity of glacier volume change estimation to DEM void interpolation |
| title_fullStr | Sensitivity of glacier volume change estimation to DEM void interpolation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Sensitivity of glacier volume change estimation to DEM void interpolation |
| title_short | Sensitivity of glacier volume change estimation to DEM void interpolation |
| title_sort | sensitivity of glacier volume change estimation to dem void interpolation |
| url | https://www.the-cryosphere.net/13/895/2019/tc-13-895-2019.pdf |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT rmcnabb sensitivityofglaciervolumechangeestimationtodemvoidinterpolation AT cnuth sensitivityofglaciervolumechangeestimationtodemvoidinterpolation AT akaab sensitivityofglaciervolumechangeestimationtodemvoidinterpolation AT lgirod sensitivityofglaciervolumechangeestimationtodemvoidinterpolation |