Glaciares de Chile
- Glaciares del Volcán Melimoyu
- Glaciares del Nevado de Queulat
- Glaciares del Volcán Mentolat
- Glaciares del Volcán Cay
- Glaciares del Volcán Macá
- Glaciares del Volcán Hudson
- Glaciar Erasmo
- Glaciar San Rafael
- Glaciar San Quintín
- Campo de Hielo Norte
- Glaciar Nef
- Glaciar Colonia
- Lago Cachet II
- Glaciar Steffen
- Glaciares del Monte San Lorenzo
- Glaciar Jorge Montt
- Glaciar Lucía
- Glaciar Los Moscos
- Glaciar Bernardo
- Glaciar O’Higgins
- Glaciar Chico
- Campo de Hielo Sur
- Campo de Hielo Sur
- Glaciar Témpanos
- Glaciar Pío XI
- Glaciar Viedma
- Glaciar Perito Moreno
- Glaciar Dickson
- Glaciar Olvidado
- Glaciar Grey
- Glaciar Amalia
- Glaciar Pingo
- Glaciar Tyndall
- Glaciar Balmaceda
- Isla Desolación
- Glaciares de la Isla Santa Inés
- Seno Gabriel
- Glaciar Schiaparelli
- Glaciar Marinelli
- Fiordo Parry
- Cordillera Darwin
- Glaciar Garibaldi
- Glaciar Roncagli
- Glaciares Isla Hoste
Antártica
"Ice loss from the Southern Patagonian Ice Field, South America, between 2000 and 2012"
Willis, M., A. Melkonian, M. Pritchard & A. Rivera (2012) : “Ice loss from the Southern Patagonian Ice Field, South America, between 2000 and 2012” Geophysical Research Letters, L17501, Doi:10.1029/2012gl053136.
Resumen / Abstract.
A time-series composed of 156 ASTER derived Digital Elevation Models (DEMs) and a radar-penetration-bias corrected version of the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) DEM is used to derive ice surface height and volume changes at the Southern Patagonian Ice Field (SPI) in southern South America. The observations, made between February 2000 and March 2012, indicate that the ice field is rapidly losing volume at many of the largest outlet glaciers, and in most cases thinning extends to the highest elevations of the ice field. Mass loss is occurring at a rate of -20.0 ±1.2 Gt a-1, equivalent to +0.067 ±0.004mm a-1 of sea level rise. Our decade-long mass loss rates are substantially higher than those derived during the last three decades of the 20th century, but are in good agreement with recent GRACE observations. Our volume loss estimate is sensitive to constraints applied to the amount of thickening in the accumulation zone. New field measurements and a continued DEM time-series will be required to refine our estimates.