16
Comparison of Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping Sahana Raghunandan, John Paden, Shannon Blunt, Carl Leuschen Ken Jezek, Xiaoqing Wu, John Paden, Carl Leuschen

Comparison of Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

  • Upload
    adonica

  • View
    34

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Comparison of Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping. Sahana Raghunandan, John Paden, Shannon Blunt, Carl Leuschen Ken Jezek , Xiaoqing Wu, John Paden, Carl Leuschen. Current Platforms. GPR. Twin Otter. P-3. DC-8. Methods. Interferometric SAR (INSAR) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

Comparison of Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

• Sahana Raghunandan, John Paden, Shannon Blunt, Carl Leuschen

• Ken Jezek, Xiaoqing Wu, John Paden, Carl Leuschen

Page 2: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

Current Platforms

GPR

DC-8

Twin Otter

P-3

Page 3: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

Methods• Interferometric SAR (INSAR)

– Beam forming followed by absolute phase estimation where phase is related to the angle of arrival

• SAR Tomography• MUSIC• MLE• RISR

Page 4: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

Tomographic Concept

Page 5: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

MLE 1

Page 6: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

MLE 2

Page 7: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

MUSIC

Page 8: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

RISR

Page 9: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

Simulation

Page 10: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

MLE/MUSIC Comparison

558 559 560 561 562 563 564

7462

7462.5

7463

7463.5

7464

350

400

450

500

558 559 560 561 562 563 564

7462

7462.5

7463

7463.5

7464

350

400

450

500

Page 11: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

MLE/MUSIC Comparison

562 562.5 563 563.5 564

7459

7460

7461

7462

7463

7464

7465 200

250

300

350

400

450

500

562 562.5 563 563.5 564

7459

7460

7461

7462

7463

7464

7465 200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Page 12: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

Cross Over Analysis

562 562.5 563 563.5

7462

7462.2

7462.4

7462.6

7462.8

7463

7463.2

7463.4

7463.6

7463.8

7464

-60

-40

-20

0

20

40

562 562.5 563 563.5

7462

7462.2

7462.4

7462.6

7462.8

7463

7463.2

7463.4

7463.6

7463.8

7464

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

Page 13: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

Basal Topography – Tomography and Interpolated Nadir Data

Basal Topography estimate of Isunguata Sermia Glacier computed by subtracting tomographic ice thickness from ATM surface elevation model (upper). Basal topography estimated by interpolating nadir ice thickness data and subtracting from surface elevation model (lower).

Page 14: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

Data Comparisons

Basal topography constructed from tomography (red), nadir data (blue) and interpolated nadir-data (black) along the northerly (upper left), central (upper right) and southernly (lower left) profile lines. ATM derived surface elevation along the deglaciated terrain forward of the glacier (lower right) illustrates the similarity of the glaciated and deglaciated basal topography.

Page 15: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping

Proglacial and Subglacial Terrain

Hill-shaded model of the tomography-derived basal topography (dark blue) overlaid on a hill-shaded model of the interpolated nadir-data topography (gray). These are overlaid on a hill-shaded model of the ice-sheet, exposed-rock surface (light blue). The vertical exaggeration of each model is 10x. Similarity between proglacial and subglacial terrain suggests that erorsion processes largely unchanged as glacier has retreated.

Page 16: Comparison of  Methods for Ice Bottom Mapping