Estimation of PGR Induced Absolute Gravity Changes at Greenland GNET Stations
An important subject in the climate debate is the study of the major ice sheets mass balance. Knowledge of the mass balance provides understanding of changes in the relative sea-level (RSL). Several methods are used for mass balance studies but they are associated with large uncertainties. One reason for the uncertainty is the presence of the postglacial rebound (PGR) signal in the geodetic data used for mass balance estimates. Estimates of the PGR signal can be obtained by modelling and then being subtracted from the data to eliminate its influence. In this study, the PGR gravity signal will be investigated through modelling. The modelling of seven different scenarios shows that the PGR gravity signal in Greenland is less then 1 μGal/year (1 μGal = 10 nm/s2). Repeated absolute gravity (AG) measurements at selected Greenland network (GNET) GPS sites were initiated in 2009. These data will in the future help constrain PGR and present-day ice mass changes. The data is collected with an A10 absolute gravimeter, which has an accuracy of 10 μGal (manufacturer specification). Here we will evaluate the modelled PGR gravity signal at selected GNET sites and conclude that the signal is significantly smaller then the gravity instruments accuracy and a long time is needed to detect it. Also, it can be expected that the elastic signal will be larger and other data like GPS is needed to separate the viscous and elastic signal.
KeywordsGreenland Postglacial rebound Absolute gravity
Thanks go to Gudfinna Adalgeirsdottier (Danish Metrological Institute) for generating the SICOPOLIS ice model for Greenland and Giorgio Spada (Urbino University “Carlo Bo”) for assistance in working with his program.
- Argus DF, Peltier WR (2010) Constraining models of postglacial rebound using space geodesy: a detailed assessment of model ICE-5G (VM2) and its relatives. Geophys J Int 181:697–723Google Scholar
- Bevis M, Kendrick E, Smalley R Jr, Dalziel I, Caccamise D, Sasgen I, Helsen M, Taylor FW, Zhou H, Brown A, Raleigh D, Willis M, Wilson T, Konfal S (2009) Geodetic measurements of vertical crustal velocity in West Antarctica and the implications for ice mass balance. Geochem Geophys Geosyst 10:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Falk R, Müller J, Lux H, Wilmes H, Wziontek H (2009) Precise gravimetric surveys with the field absolute gravimeter A10. Geodesy for planet Earth: proceedings of the 2009 IAG symposium, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 31 August to 9 September. Springer, Berlin, pp 273–279Google Scholar
- Khan SA, Liu L, Wahr J, Howat I, Joughin I, van Dam T, Fleming K (2010) GPS measurements of crustal uplift near Jakobshavn Isbræ due to glacial ice mass loss. J Geophys Res 115:1–13Google Scholar
- Mémin A, Hinderer J, Rogister Y (2011) Separation of the geodetic consequences of past and present ice-mass change: influence of topography with application to Svalbard (Norway). Pure Appl Geophys. doi:10.1007/s00024-011-0399-7Google Scholar
- Mitrovica JX, Peltier WR (1989) Pleistocene deglaciation and the global gravity field. J Geophys Res 94:651–671Google Scholar
- Mitrovica J, Peltier W (1991) On postglacial geoid subsidence over the equatorial oceans. J Geophys Res 96:53–71Google Scholar
- Peltier WR, Tushingham AM (1993) Relative Sea Level Database. IGBP PAGES/World Data Center for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution. NOAA/NCDC Paleoclimatology Program, pp 93–016Google Scholar
- Sun W, Miura S, Sato T, Sugano T, Freymueller J, Kaufman M, Larsen CF, Cross R, Inazu D (2010) Gravity measurements in southeastern Alaska reveal negative gravity rate of change caused by Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. J Geophys Res 115:1–40Google Scholar
- Van Dam T, Larson K, Wahr J, Francis O (2000) Using GPS and gravity to infer ice mass changes in Greenland. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 81:421–427Google Scholar
- Whitehouse P (2009) Glacial isostatic adjustment and sea-level change—state of the art report. Durham University/Svensk Kärnbränslehantering ABGoogle Scholar
- Wu P, Peltier WR (1983) Glacial isostatic adjustment and the free air gravity anomaly as a constraint on the deep mantle viscosity. Geophys J R Astron Soc 74:377–449Google Scholar