Search

We present a novel method to estimate dynamic ice loss of Greenland's three largest outlet glaciers: Jakobshavn Isbræ, Kangerlussuaq Glacier, and Helheim Glacier. We use Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) stations attached to bedrock to measure elastic displacements of the solid Earth caused by dynamic thinning near the glacier terminus. When we compare our results with discharge, we find a time lag between glacier speedup/slowdown and onset of dynamic thinning/thickening. Our results show that dynamic thinning/thickening on Jakobshavn Isbræ occurs 0.87 ± 0.07 years before speedup/slowdown. This implies that using GNSS time series we are able to predict speedup/slowdown of Jakobshavn Isbræ by up to 10.4 months. For Kangerlussuaq Glacier the lag between thinning/thickening and speedup/slowdown is 0.37 ± 0.17 years (4.4 months). Our methodology and results could be important for studies that attempt to model and understand mechanisms controlling short‐term dynamic fluctuations of outlet glaciers in Greenland. Plain Language Summary: A wide range of sensors and methods have been used to study the changes of the Greenland Ice Sheet, including satellite gravimetry, altimetry, and the input‐output method. Here, we present a novel fourth method to estimate dynamic ice loss of Greenland's three largest outlet glaciers: Jakobshavn Isbræ, Kangerlussuaq Glacier, and Helheim Glacier. We use Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) stations attached to bedrock to measure rise of land masses caused by ongoing ice mass loss near the glacier terminus. When we compare our results with ice discharge, we find a time lag between glacier speedup/slowdown and onset of dynamic induced thinning/thickening. Our results show that dynamic thinning/thickening on Jakobshavn Isbræ occurs 0.87 ± 0.07 years before speedup/slowdown. This implies that using GNSS uplift time series we are able to predict ice flow speedup/slowdown of Jakobshavn Isbræ by up to 10 months. For Kangerlussuaq Glacier and Helheim Glacier the lag between thinning/thickening and speedup/slowdown is 0.37 ± 0.17 years (4.4 months) and 0.03 ± 0.16 years, respectively. Our methodology and results could be important for studies that attempt to model and understand mechanisms controlling short‐term dynamic fluctuations of outlet glaciers in Greenland. Key Points: A novel method to estimate dynamic ice loss of Greenland's three largest outlet glaciers, Jakobshavn, Kangerlussuaq, and Helheim glacierDynamic thinning/thickening occurs 0.87 ± 0.07 years before speedup/slowdown at Jakobshavn IsbræA similar time lag between change in uplift rate and flow speed change allows us to predict future ice discharge from past uplift [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Understanding the long-term difference in the response times of ice sheets, peripheral ice caps and glaciers may provide information about their respective sensitivities to climate change. However, there are only a few places where the history of local glaciers, ice caps (GICs) and the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) have been recorded in the same area. In this study, we use proglacial threshold lake records from four sites around Sermilik Fjord, in southeast Greenland to determine the Holocene ice marginal variations. Combined with other published records from the area, we find that the GrIS margin receded to within its present extent in the Early Holocene ~9.6 cal ka BP, probably reaching its minimum extent by ~7.3 to 6.3 cal ka BP before readvancing to its maximum Late Holocene position between ~2.6 and 0.3 cal ka BP. The GICs began to retreat ~9.5 cal ka BP and completely melted away for an extended period between ~8 and 4 ka during the Middle Holocene. Regrowth of the GICs began during the early- and late Neoglacial and they reached their maximum extent between ~1.2 and 0.7 cal ka BP. In general, we find a coherent pattern of ice marginal variations between the GrIS and GICs, which coincides with the major Holocene climate changes. However, our results also demonstrate that there are differences in the synchronicity between individual records, which largely are dictated by the local topography that determines when ice marginal changes were recorded in proglacial lakes. Accordingly, this study illustrates both the advantages and limitations of the method and highlight the need for multiple proglacial lake records to constrain past glacier variations in a region. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]