• <tr id="yyy80"></tr>
  • <sup id="yyy80"></sup>
  • <tfoot id="yyy80"><noscript id="yyy80"></noscript></tfoot>
  • 99热精品在线国产_美女午夜性视频免费_国产精品国产高清国产av_av欧美777_自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇_亚洲熟女精品中文字幕_www日本黄色视频网_国产精品野战在线观看 ?

    Thickness estimation of the Longbasaba Glacier:methods and application

    2020-03-29 08:06:52GuangLiHeJunFengWeiXinWang
    Sciences in Cold and Arid Regions 2020年6期

    GuangLi He,JunFeng Wei*,Xin Wang,2

    1. School of Resource Environment and Safety Engineering, Hunan University of Science and Technology, Xiangtan,Hunan 411100,China

    2. State Key Laboratory of Cryospheric Science, Northwest Institute of Ecology and Environmental Resources, Chinese Academy of Sciences,Lanzhou,Gansu 730000,China

    ABSTRACT A total of 71,177 glaciers exist on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau,according to the Randolph Glacier Inventory (RGI 6.0).De‐spite their large number,glacier ice thickness data are relatively scarce.This study utilizes digital elevation model data and ground-penetrating radar thickness measurements to estimate the distribution and variation of ice thickness of the Longba‐saba Glacier using Glacier bed Topography (GlabTop), a full-width expansion model, and the Huss and Farinotti (HF)model. Results show that the average absolute deviations of GlabTop, the full-width expansion model, and the HF model are 9.8, 15.5, and 10.9 m, respectively, indicating that GlabTop performs the best in simulating glacier thickness distribu‐tion.During 1980?2015,the Longbasaba Glacier thinned by an average of 7.9±1.3 m or 0.23±0.04 m/a,and its ice volume shrunk by 0.28±0.04 km3 with an average reduction rate of 0.0081±0.0001 km3/a.In the investigation period,the area and volume of Longbasaba Lake expanded at rates of 0.12±0.01 km2/a and 0.0132±0.0018 km3/a,respectively.This proglacial lake could potentially extend up to 5,000 m from the lake dam.

    Keywords: Longbasaba Glacier; ice thickness distribution; ice volume change; glacial lake retention role; glacial lake expansion

    1 Introduction

    In the context of global warming, glaciers around the world have generally continued to melt over re‐cent decades (Lemkeet al., 2007). Such morphologi‐cal change, which is characterized by reduced glacier area and thickness (Beameret al., 2017; Mayeret al.,2018; Van Tielet al., 2020), has important implica‐tions regarding local/regional water resources(Immer‐zeelet al.,2010;Immerzeel and Bierkens,2012;Port‐neret al., 2019). Data on glacier thickness distribu‐tion and change are useful in various respects: (i) as basic parameters of glaciological research and applica‐tion, (ii) as essential input parameters for establishing glacier hydrological models, dynamic models, and di‐saster simulation models (Huggelet al., 2003), and(iii) as important indices for both evaluating the influ‐ence of glacier change on surface runoff and formulat‐ing disaster prevention/mitigation measures (Zhanget al., 2012). Owing to limited access and economic costs associated with field-based glacier investigation,it is difficult to directly measure the distribution of glacier thickness and estimate the total glacier volume at the regional scale. Comprehensive, accurate data of glacier ice thickness and ice volume are extremely rare. For glaciers that are difficult to access for direct measurement or that have a large spatial scale, one reasonably effective approach is to estimate glacier thickness distribution based on glacier development characteristics and topographic factors for determin‐ing glacier volume. Many researchers have developed various ice thickness estimation methods based on surface characteristics (Farinottiet al., 2017) that can be used to evaluate glacier ice thickness distribution and ice storage indirectly.

    Among the many existing methods for estimating glacier ice thickness distribution,the empirical formu‐la method is the simplest and most practicable, and it has been used widely in recent years (Bahret al.,2015). According to measured data of typical glacier thickness, the empirical formula method uses statisti‐cal methods to obtain a relationship for evaluating the ice thickness distribution and ice volume based on easily obtained glacier parameters such as area and length. This approach primarily explores the relation‐ship between the area and volume of a glacier (Chen and Ohmura, 1990; Bahret al., 1997) and also in‐cludes other characteristics such as glacier length or surface slope (Lüthi, 2009; Radi? and Hock, 2011;Grinsted, 2013). However, the empirical formula method can be used to estimate only the mean thick‐ness and total volume of a glacier.The method adopt‐ed for the estimation of ice thickness distribution usu‐ally depends on various theoretical considerations.Some studies have highlighted that, for an ideal gla‐cier with infinite width, ice thickness can be assessed from the surface slope (Nye, 1952). Subsequently,Nye (1965)extended the scope of consideration to the ideal shape of a valley glacier,and Liet al.(2012)fur‐ther considered the influence of glacier edge side re‐sistance. Haeberli and Heozle (1995) were the first to suggest that glacier thickness could be estimated from the range of glacier elevations. Subsequently, a series of glacier thickness studies were conducted by glacier bed topography (referred to as the GlabTop model, or simply GalbTop hereafter), a modified version named GlabTop2, and the latest version called Glab‐Top2_IITB (Linsbaueret al., 2012; Freyet al., 2014;Pandit and Ramsankaran, 2020). The GlabTop is a model that evaluates the spatial distribution of ice thickness by estimating glacier depth at several points on the so-called glacier branch line. The GlabTop2 model randomly selects digital elevation model (DEM)units in the glaciated area. The GlabTop2_IITB is an independent implementation of the GlabTop2 model and is fully automated.

    Budd and Allison (1975) and Rasmussen (1988)applied the methods of mass conservation and ice flow dynamics, which were further developed for ice thickness analyses (Fastooket al., 1995; Farinottiet al.,2009a).Huss and Farinotti(2012)continued to ex‐tend the ice flow dynamics method and were the first to successively present a comprehensive ice thickness distribution of a single glacier.Alternative approaches based on rigorous inverse models often focus on infer‐ring basal slipperiness based on bedrock topography(Gudmundssonet al., 2001; Thorsteinssonet al.,2003; Pralong and Gudmundsson, 2011; Mosbeuxet al., 2016). In recent years, the development of meth‐ods for estimating glacier ice thickness distribution based on surface characteristics has increased rapidly.Some techniques need additional parameters,e.g.,sur‐face velocity and mass balance (Morlighemet al.,2011; McNabbet al., 2012; Clarkeet al., 2013; Fari‐nottiet al.,2013;Gantayatet al.,2014;Huss and Fari‐notti, 2014; Brinkerhoffet al., 2016). Other methods adopt an iterative approach using complex forward models of ice flow (Michelet al., 2013; Van Peltet al., 2013; Michelet al., 2014) or a nonphysical algo‐rithm based on neural network methods (Clarkeet al.,2009; Haqet al., 2014). Some models have also achieved good results in the estimation of ice thick‐ness.For instance,the Brinkerhoff-v2 model(Brinker‐hoffet al., 2016), widely considered the best, can achieve an estimate of glacier thickness with an aver‐age deviation of 3%±27% (Farinottiet al., 2017).Among the various automated methods that can deal with a large number of glaciers, the Huss model is the best, with an average deviation of -14%±35% (Huss and Farinotti,2012;Farinottiet al.,2017).

    The input data for an ice thickness distribution model include at least some information on the gla‐cier or ice cap profile and an ice surface DEM. Such models require additional information according to specific conditions, including the surface mass bal‐ance(SMB),ice thickness change rate(?h/?t),and sur‐face velocity. The contours and DEM of a glacier can be acquired from satellite images at a given time. In contrast, the SMB, ?h/?t, and surface velocity of the glacier usually refer to the multiyear averages of an epoch,which should be as close as possible to the cor‐responding DEM to ensure temporal consistency be‐tween datasets. It is difficult to estimate the internal surface velocity,however.

    Despite a large number of methods available for the assessment of glacier ice thickness, there has been no analysis of the applicability of any of these methods to a glacier on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.The remote location and harsh environment of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau make it difficult to obtain gla‐cier thickness and ice volume data directly. Currently,glacier ice volume data are relatively scarce, despite a large number of glaciers on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau.The Longbasaba Glacier, in direct contact with an gla‐cial lake, has a huge scale and many branches.There‐fore, the various ice flow directions and the shear stress on the branch lines are not the same as those on the main flowline,and it is inappropriate to directly es‐timate ice thickness utilizing the glacier height differ‐ence.Hence,this study estimated the ice thickness dis‐tribution of the Longbasaba Glacier using the Glab‐Top model, the full-width expansion model, and the HF-model.The model results were compared with the thickness measurements obtained simultaneously from ground-penetrating radar (GPR) and differential glob‐al positioning system (GPS) to validate their applica‐bility. Finally, the thickness distribution of the Long‐basaba Glacier in 1980,2000,2010,and 2015 estimat‐ed using the most suitable model was presented and used to investigate the variation of ice volume and the volume of the glacial lake.

    2 Study site

    The Longbasaba Glacier (27°56.67′N, 88°04.21′E)is within the Pengqu River Basin on the northern slope of the Himalayas.The Longbasaba Glacier,with a length of 9 km and an area of approximately 31 km2in 2018(Liuet al.,2020),has experienced rap‐id retreat since the 1970s (Wanget al., 2008; Yaoet al., 2012). Ice serac, supraglacial lakes, and ice cre‐vasses are well-developed features on the glacier sur‐face (Figure 1). The lower part of the ice cliff at the end of the glacier is recessed into the glacier. During the field investigation,the collapse of the ice cliff was observed frequently. Thus, it can be inferred that the thermal karst process plays an essential role in the ero‐sion at the end of the glacier.The glacier terminal mo‐raine lake (Longbasaba Lake) lies at the elevation of 5,500 m and has a length (N ?S) of 2,210 m and a width (E?W) of 685 m. This strip-shaped lake is the source of the second tributary of the Pengqu River Ba‐sin.The water supplied to the Longbasaba Lake is de‐rived mainly from glacier meltwater. In summer,many ice bodies with different sizes break away from the mother glacier and float on the lake.According to a field survey conducted using an echo sounder with a GPS receiver in 2009(Yaoet al.,2012),the water lev‐el of Longbasaba Lake is 5,499 m a.s.l..The lake's av‐erage depth and maximum depth are 48 and 102 m,re‐spectively, and its volume is 0.064 km3. The surface moraine of the glacial lake dam is composed mainly of medium?coarse granite.An artificial outlet was ex‐cavated at the southwest corner of the dam to drain the lake,forming many small ponds at the depressions in front of the moraine ridge. Based on soil tempera‐ture, water, and heat flux data observed at different depths of the dam during 2012?2016, it has been es‐tablished that the permafrost layer of the dam is dete‐riorating, compromising its stability (Wanget al.,2018). Consequently, Longbasaba Lake is considered a high-risk moraine lake, and the probability of col‐lapse is classified as"very high"(Wanget al.,2008).

    Figure 1 Location and characteristics of the study area:(a)glacier location;(b)contact of the end of the Longbasaba Glacier with the glacial lake,ice floes show a small amount of newly collapse;(c)profiles of GPR survey conducted on the Longbasaba Glacier in July 2009 with Landsat 5 image from December 30,2010,as the background

    3 Data and methods

    3.1 Data

    In this study, a topographic map and three Land‐sat images were used to extract boundary informa‐tion of the Longbasaba Glacier in different periods.In addition, terrain related parameters such as sur‐face slope (needed for ice thickness and ice volume estimation)were extracted for the corresponding pe‐riods from DEM data,e.g., the topographic map and the satellite-derived Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM), the Advanced Land Observing Satellite (ALOS), and the TerraSAR-X add-on for digital elevation measurements (TanDEM-X) data(Table 1).

    Table 1 Overview of the satellite imagery and data sources used in the study

    The Landsat images were obtained from the glob‐al remote sensing image database (https://earthexplor‐er.usgs.gov/) of the United States Geological Survey(USGS). Such images, which have 30-m spatial reso‐lution and plane positioning error better than one pix‐el (Bolchet al., 2010; Guoet al., 2013), are used widely to extract glacier area and related attributes(Guoet al.,2015).In this study,based on a topograph‐ic map from 1980 and Landsat images obtained in 2000, 2010, and 2015, the boundary information of the glacier/glacial lake in corresponding periods was obtained manually. The streamline information of the glacier in the four periods was obtained using an auto‐matic extraction method(Yaoet al.,2015).

    The topographic map was produced by the China Military Geodetic Service based on aerial photo‐graphs taken in October 1980. Contours were digi‐tized manually and then converted into a raster DEM(TOPO DEM) with 30-m grid pixels using the Thies‐sen polygon method (Shangguanet al., 2010; Weiet al.,2015;Zhanget al.,2016).Wuet al.(2018)report‐ed that the vertical accuracy of TOPO DEM on gla‐ciers is better than 9 m. The 2000 SRTM1 Arc-Sec‐ond Global data with 30-m resolution were retrieved from the International Scientific Data Mirroring Web‐site (http://datamirror.csdb.cn) of the Chinese Acade‐my of Sciences Computer Network Information Cen‐ter. The vertical difference in the mountain area, as calculated based on the root mean square error of the GPS data,was approximately 12 m (Khasanov,2020).The ALOS/PRISM Level 1B1 stereo image pair DEM was selected to extract the 2010 glacier elevation(http://218.248.0.130/internet/servlet/LoginServlet) with 30-m resolution. At last, the 2015 DEM data of the Longbasaba Glacier were obtained using the direct TanDEM-X image data product provided by the Ger‐man space agency. It is worth noting that the vertical accuracy of the ALOS and TanDEM-X data is 6 to 8 m in steep terrain(Rastner and Paul,2020).

    In this study, field measurements of the thickness of the Longbasaba Glacier obtained in 2009 were used to calibrate the parameters and to test the accura‐cy of the glacier thickness estimation. The procedure is as follows. (1) Obtain thickness measurements or estimates from GPR and model simulation at GPS points or sampling points based on DEM data; (2)find the differences between the two data and calcu‐late the average deviation (AD); (3) adjust parameters such asf,m,n,A,C,fdebris, and db?/dz0and iterate (1)and (2) until the AD value is smallest.The parameters are then deemed as optimal and used for estimating the glacier thickness at this time, and the AD value is considered as the accuracy.

    The thickness measurements were obtained using a pulse EKKOTM100 GPR (Sensors & Software Inc.,Canada) at 237 points along a line shown in Figure 1c. The thickness at each measuring point was deter‐mined using the Reflexw GPR image processing soft‐ware with a relative error of 1.18%, which is within the required range of glaciological accuracy (Sunet al.,2003).The GPR antenna was operated at 100 MHz at a spacing of 2.5 m and a step length of 0.5 m.The measured wave velocity was 0.169 m/ns. During the GPR survey, a GPS receiver was used to acquire three-dimensional coordinates of each measuring point.

    Yaoet al.(2012) used a SyQWest HelboxTMpor‐table high-resolution shallow-water echo sounder to conduct a wide range of on-site water depth measure‐ments on the Longbasaba Lake and collected a total of 35,558 measurement points. And the position of each water depth measurement was acquired by an eTrex Vista GPS receiver with a horizontal accuracy of about 3?6 m and an average error of 1?2 m in so‐nar depth data.

    3.2 Glacier thickness and volume estimation

    Owing to the limited availability of critical param‐eters in the Longbasaba Glacier area,this study select‐ed three methods to estimate glacier thickness: Glab‐Top,the full-width expansion model,and the HF-model.The accuracy of each method was evaluated based on measured data of ice thickness.

    (1)GlabTop:GlabTop assumes that the glacier is a U-shaped ideal plastic body. When in a stable state,the maximum thickness of the ice body can be evalu‐ated based on the glacier surface slope and basal shear stress (Paterson and Cuffey, 1994). It is generally be‐lieved that the maximum thickness of a glacier occurs at the mid-streamline; therefore, glacier thickness (hf)at the streamline can be expressed as follows:

    whereτrepresents the average basal shear stress along the mid-streamline kPa;ρ, ice density;g, gravi‐tational acceleration; andα, the average surface slope angle at the glacier mid-streamline, which can be cal‐culated from the DEM. For alpine glaciers, the mor‐phological factorfwas calibrated by the measured ice thickness data to be 0.8. The basal shear stress of the glacier was determined based on the glacier height dif‐ference(ΔH)(Haeberli and H?lzle,1995):

    Based on ALOS data, the elevation difference of the Longbasaba Glacier in 2010 was 1,953.88 m;there‐fore, the basal shear stress was 150 kPa. The average glacier surface slope was estimated based on the mean slope within a 400-m length of the mid-streamline(Paterson and Cuffey,1994).

    (2)Full-width expansion model:The full-width expansion model represents a development of Glab‐Top.In this method,the glacier shape factor is consid‐ered to have a significant influence on the estimation of maximum glacier thickness, and that fixed parame‐ters should not be used in the calculation for different glaciers (Liet al., 2012). Based on statistical analysis,Nye (1965) suggested that the shape factor is a func‐tion of the glacier's width and thickness. However, Liet al.(2012) assumed a parabolic cross-section and expressed the glacier shape factor (f) using the fol‐lowing formula:

    whereγis the ratio of the glacier's half-widthwto its thicknessh, andmis a constant (0.9). Therefore, the above equation can be transformed into the following(Liet al.,2012):

    whereHiis the thickness of the glacier in an ideal state,which can be calculated based on Equation(1).

    (3)HF-model:According to the basic principles of glacier mass transformation and ice flow dynamics(Glen, 1955), the HF-model considers that the thick‐ness at any point on a streamline of the glacier can be determined as follows:

    whereCis the terrain correction coefficient;A,the ve‐locity coefficient;n, the flow law index, which usual‐ly fluctuates between 1.5 and 4.2 (generally, taken as 3.0);the mean ice volume flux;the flow line along the glacier;ρ, the density of ice (kg/m); andg,gravitational acceleration (m/s2). The ice flux at any point on a streamline of a glacier can be computed based on the conservation of glacial mass and the gra‐dient of the glacial mass balance as follows (Farinottiet al.,2009a):

    wherefdebrisis the influence factor of the epidermis(generally, taken as 0.5) (Husset al., 2007). For each glacier, the apparent mass balance gradientsandand the elevationzwere used to calculate the apparent mass balance distribution. The apparent mass balancewas derived by accumulating the same at each grid unitiin the glacier area.in this ar‐ea is conducive to the calculation of ice volume flux.The normalized ice volume flux and the local glacier width relevant for ice discharge were used to obtain the mean specific ice flow

    Besides, the apparent mass balance gradientsandcould be calculated using the Huss method(Huss and Farinotti,2012):

    whereC0is the continentality index, which is intro‐duced to set the reference apparent mass balance gra‐dientat 5.5×10?3per year (Husset al., 2007)according to the local glacial conditions. Based on the glacial cell altitudeELAlatand the median altitudeELAg,C0can be obtained as follows:

    wherefcont, equal to 2,400 m, is a constant parameter calibrated by the difference of the mass balance gradi‐ent observed in mainland glaciers and marine glaciers(Haeberliet al.,2008).

    Based on the measured ice thickness data, the ice thickness estimates using GlabTop, the full-width ex‐pansion model, and the HF-model were analyzed and compared to select the optimal method for estimating the thickness of the Longbasaba Glacier. The glacier was divided into different elevation zones based on 50-m elevation intervals. The thickness at the middle point of the different elevation zones of the glacier mid-streamline was evaluated using the above three methods. Additionally, the glacier thickness at any point of the mid-streamline was estimated using the inverse distance weighting method. Based on the zero ice thickness assumption at the glacier boundary and ridge line, and glacier streamline thickness distribu‐tion,the Kruger spatial interpolation method was used to interpolate the thickness at any point of a glacier to obtain the characteristics of glacier thickness distribu‐tion. Notably, topographic factors such as glacier sur‐face slope at selected periods were extracted from a 1980 topographic map, 2000 SRTM data, 2010 ALOS data,and 2015 TanDEM-X data.Eventually,the thick‐ness distributions were obtained for estimating the glacier's volume in the different periods and analyzing its variation characteristics. Specifically, the ice vol‐ume (Vg) was estimated based on the area (Sg)and the average glacier thicknessby using the following formula:

    3.3 Estimation of glacial lake water volume

    The topography of the Longbasaba Lake/Glacier bed was constructed to calculate the amount of lake water during different periods. First, the depth data collected in 2009 was utilized to establish the shape of the lake basin (Yaoet al., 2012), and the ice thick‐ness and topographic maps of 1980 were used to ob‐tain topographic data of the glacier bed. Considering the steep slope at the glacier end, a vertical glacier front,or a straight"line"in a section view(refer to Fig‐ure 6), was assumed when merging the bed terrains of the lake and glacier. The lake water volume in each year,Vl,was estimated using the following equation:

    where,Nlis the pixel number within the lake bound‐ary in each year;the depth of the individual pixel,which can be calculated by comparing the water level and the basin morphology; andS, the lake area in the corresponding year.

    3.4 Uncertainty analysis

    The thickness estimates from the three methods were compared with the field measurements by GPR.Each method's total error was quantified by the aver‐age difference between the estimated and the mea‐sured thicknesses (hereafter, the average deviation).The average deviation expressed as a percentage of each glacier's mean measured flow line thickness was defined as the ice thickness uncertainty (Liet al.,2012).

    The geolocation errors of the pixels on the glacier/lake boundaries, generated through a careful manual approach, can be controlled within a pixel. By com‐paring the outline positions from the manual delinea‐tion and GPS measurements, Guo and others (2015)suggested that the accuracies of manual outlines were±11 m and±30 m for clean ice and debris-covered gla‐ciers, respectively. In this study, the position accura‐cy of glacier boundary was affected by the debris cover on the glacier tongue but without the glacier terminus, as it was easy to distinguish the glacier from its proglacial lake exactly. The accuracies of the generated area were defined by the buffer along the glacier/lake perimeters with the size of half of the outline position error, and equal to 0.5 pixels multiplied by the pixel number within the perimeters and the spatial resolution of the images (Bolchet al.,2010; Guoet al., 2015). The average area uncertain‐ties of the glacier and lake were found to be ±8%and±3%,respectively.

    According to the ice thickness calculation formu‐la, the uncertainty in ice volume estimation depends on ice thickness and glacier area uncertainty and was found to be about 15.2%. Since the basin topography was derived from ice thickness data and sonar detec‐tion data,the uncertainty of lake water volume estima‐tion results from two aspects. The first aspect of the uncertainty is related to the estimation of the lake wa‐ter volume before the fusion line and mainly depends on the accuracy of the sonar sounding.It can be evalu‐ated as the product of the lake area error and the aver‐age lake depth. The uncertainty of the lake water vol‐ume after the fusion line (basin of 1980) should con‐sider not only the accuracy of sonar sounding but also the uncertainty of the ice thickness estimation and can be evaluated by the following formula:

    where,?vis the uncertainty of the glacial lake volume;and ?s, the uncertainty of the lake area;is the aver‐age water depth of the lake;is the uncertainty of the average water depth;Sis the lake area.

    4 Results and analyses

    4.1 Comparison of ice thickness estimates

    According to the methods described in Section 3.2, the ice thickness distributions were analyzed and illustrated in Figure 2.According to the ice thickness distribution obtained using GlabTop shown in Figure 2a, the thickness of the Longbasaba Glacier in 2010 was in the range of 0.0 to 288.1±14.6 m,with an aver‐age ice thickness of 48.8±8.1 m. The maximum ice body thickness occurred in the middle of the glacier,and the maximum ice thickness of the ice tongue was approximately 110.1±18.3 m. Figure 2b illustrates the glacier ice thickness distribution acquired using the full-width expansion model. The ice thickness ranged from 0.0 to 172.8±43.9 m, with an average thickness of 55.8±14.2 m. The maximum ice thickness was lo‐cated within the ice tongue, and the thickness was greatest along the glacier's central flowline. The gla‐cier tongue generally extended deep in the middle and was shallow at the upper and lower ends.From the ice thickness distribution derived from the HF-model shown in Figure 2c, one can see that the maximum glacier thickness appeared in the middle of the gla‐cier, with the ice body thickness ranging from 0.0 to 168.5±31.2 m and an average thickness of 29.4±5.4 m.However, the body of the glacier tongue was thicker,and the ice thickness in the glacier accumulation zone was thinner.

    Figure 2 Ice thickness distributions of the Longbasaba Glacier in 2010 obtained using.(a)The GlabTop model,(b)the full-width expansion model,and(c)the HF-model

    The scatter plots presented in Figure 3 illustrate how the estimated ice thickness correlates with the measured. In the legend,nrepresents the number of data points,AD represents the average deviation, and the value in parentheses indicates the percent of the average deviation to the average measured streamline thickness of the glacier. The average deviations of GlabTop, the full-width expansion method, and the HF-model are 9.8, 15.5, and 10.9 m, respectively.The ice thickness uncertainty of GlabTop, the full-width expansion method, and the HF-model is 16.6%,25.4%,and 18.5%,respectively.Accordingly,as Glab‐Top produced the smallest deviation from the mea‐sured value of ice thickness, it was considered better than the other two methods and therefore used to esti‐mate the thickness of the Longbasaba Glacier.

    4.2 Changes in ice thickness and ice volume

    Considering the influence of bedrock wear caused by glacier movement, GlabTop, with its high reliability, was used to estimate the ice thick‐ness of the Longbasaba Glacier in 1980, 2000,2010,and 2015,as shown in Figure 4.The DEM da‐ta used for calculating the ice surface slope in each stage are summarized in Table 1. After the ice thickness of the mid-streamline of the glacier was calculated using GlabTop, the 30 m×30 m resolu‐tion distribution model of ice thickness in each pe‐riod was acquired using Inverse Distance Weighting interpolation.

    Figure 3 Comparison of measured ice thickness of the Longbasaba Glacier in 2010 with thickness estimated using.(a)GlabTop,(b)the full-width expansion model,and(c)the HF-model

    Figure 4 Ice thickness distribution of the Longbasaba Glacier by Glabtop:(a)1980,(b)2000,(c)2010,and(d)2015

    In 1980, an obvious dark closed area existed in the glacier tongue, and a deep depression was visible in the ice bed.The maximum depth was 301.9±50.1 m,and the average ice thickness was 55.1±9.1 m. In 2000, the maximum thickness of the central part of the glacier decreased to 295.2±49.1 m, and the aver‐age glacier thickness fell to 50.7±8.4 m. In 2010, the glacier tongue had thinned further, with the maximum ice thickness at the end of the glacier declined to 122.4±20.3 m, the maximum glacier thickness re‐duced to 288.4±47.9 m, and the average glacier thick‐ness dropped to 48.8±8.1 m. By 2015, the maximum thickness of the glacier accumulation area had de‐creased to 270.5±44.9 m, the maximum thickness of the glacier tongue had diminished to 115.3±19.1 m,and the average glacier thickness further thinned to 47.2±7.8 m. In the 35-year study period, the average glacier thickness declined by 7.9±1.3 m or an average annual rate of 0.23±0.04 m.

    It can be seen that both the area and the volume of the Longbasaba Glacier have decreased consistently over the study period (Table 2). However, although the rate of ice volume reduction has accelerated over time (Figure 5), the area shrinking rate had declined from 2010 to 2015.During this period,glacier thinning was the main reason for the ice volume reduction.

    Table 2 Area and volume of the Longbasaba Glacier from 1980 to 2015

    Figure 5 Changes in ice volume and lake storage

    5 Discussions

    5.1 Sensitivity of model parameters

    Many studies have used these glacier thickness models. For example, Panditet al. (2020) used the GlabTop2_IITB model to report that the uncertainty of 65 glaciers in the Chandra Basin in the Western Hi‐malayas is about ±15.0%. Thickness distributions of the glaciers in the southeastern part of the Qinghai-Ti‐bet Plateau were estimated based on mass balance dis‐tribution data, glacier surface velocity and ice flow principles, and the uncertainties in ice thickness and glacier volume estimates are ±13.2% and 12.8%, re‐spectively (Wuet al., 2020). The glacier volume ob‐tained by the Volume and Topography Automation(VOTA) model ranges between 26.5% underestima‐tion and 16.6% overestimation when compared with the field observations (James and Carrivick, 2016).This study's estimated glacier volume was also com‐pared with a glacier volume dataset derived from a combination of up to five models (Farinottiet al.,2019) and was found to be about 4.0% lower than the average of those models. Rabatelet al. (2012) used surface mass balance and ice flow velocity to estimate the thickness of the French and Argentina glaciers.They found that the ice thickness differs from the ob‐served value by 10% to 30%. Combining the best model and measured ice thickness to obtain the over‐all glacier thickness distribution has also achieved good results (Langhammeret al., 2019). Many re‐searchers compared ground-penetrating radar data with simulated ice thickness (Pieczonkaet al., 2018;Pritchardet al., 2020; Weltyet al., 2020). In this study, it is found that the GlabTop model estimated ice thickness results are in good agreement with the ground-penetrating radar measurements, and the un‐certainty is about 16.6%.

    To investigate the impact of the uncertainty in the model parameters on ice thickness estimation,a sensi‐tivity analysis was performed on the ice thickness esti‐mation results. Each parameter of the different mod‐els (shape factorf, coefficientm, the flow law expo‐nentn, the flow rate factorA, the correction factorC,the surface moraine impact factorfdebris, and the refer‐ence apparent mass balance gradientwas ad‐justed in sequence. In this examination, the estimated resultant change in ice thickness was divided by an undisturbed estimation value of ice thickness to de‐fine "sensitivity" (Δh). For the Longbasaba Glacier,the undisturbed value refers to the mean glacier thick‐ness assessed using the three different models. The outcomes could be applied to predict potential errors in the ice thickness estimations, and these errors would at that point be linked to a certain parameter(e.g., glacier volume) based on the error. Similarly,this parameter would be evident in the different thick‐ness estimation approaches, and its sensitivity investi‐gation was utilized to measure its effect.

    The 2010 data were used as the basis of this sensi‐tivity analysis. The correction parameters in each ice thickness estimation model were adjusted by fitting the ice thickness determined by the model to the GPR-measured thickness.Of the three methods,Glab‐Top and the full-width expansion model have fewer model parameters; the shape factorfand the coeffi‐cientmwere considered. In the validation, two slope parameters (limitα0=4° and thresholdαlim=30°) were adopted (Liet al., 2012). Since there are many model parameters in the HF-model, for simplicity, the most sensitive parameter,i.e., the flow law exponentn, was picked for examination, and the remaining model pa‐rameters were taken from the literature. In a previous study, correction factorCwas set to 0.53 (Farinottiet al.,2009b).The speed coefficient A is generally a pre‐determined estimation of an alpine glacier (Hubbardet al., 1998; Gudmundsson, 1999). The glacier ice densityρwas assumed to be 900 kg/m3,gis 9.8 m/s2,αlimwas set to 20°, andα0was set to 2° (Farinottiet al.,2009a).

    Table 3 lists the model parameters considered in the sensitivity analysis and results.Among the param‐eters considered, it is evident that the ice thickness evaluation is most sensitive tonandf. For example, a 10% change in the values ofnandfwould cause Δhto reduce by 40.7% and 9.1%, respectively. By com‐parison, the ice thickness estimation is much less sen‐sitive to the other parameters, includingm,A,C,fdebris,and db?/dz0.

    Table 3 Sensitivity analysis and parameter setting of ice thickness estimation models

    5.2 Retention of glacier meltwater

    The injection of glacial meltwater into a glacial lake leads to its areal expansion. Furthermore, glacial meltwater does not flow out of the cryosphere entirely through surface runoff but is retained temporarily in the glacial lake. This mechanism helps regulate the water circulation process in mountainous areas to a certain extent and delays regional glacial water re‐sources loss due to global warming (Wanget al.,2013; Das, 2015). Under the background of rising air temperatures and shrinking glaciers in the Himalayas,glacial lakes are anticipated to increase in terms of number and area.

    Based on the topographic map in 1980 and the Landsat images acquired in 2000, 2010, and 2015, it was determined that meltwater from the Longbasaba Glacier had caused Longbasaba Lake to expand mark‐edly from 1980 to 2015. Based on existing data, it is difficult to accurately calculate how much glacial meltwater is retained by glacial lakes. Given the lack of obvious trends in meteorological factors such as precipitation and evaporation, it could be conjectured that expansion of glacial lake is related directly to the injection of glacial meltwater resulting from the gla‐cial retreat and increased melting (Wanget al., 2013).Accordingly, an approximate estimation of the water retained in Longbasaba Lake was provided next.

    Using Equation(10), the net increment of the gla‐cial lake area related to direct injection of glacial melt‐water can be converted into the change of the glacial lake reservoir volume,i.e., the glacial water resource of the Longbasaba Glacier retained by the glacial lake. Based on visual interpretation of topographic maps and Landsat images of different years, the boundaries of Longbasaba Lake in different periods were drawn to assess its area. It was found that Long‐basaba Lake expanded from 0.377 to 1.449 km2from 1980 to 2015. Table 4 summarizes the area and stor‐age volume and its changes in each period.

    Table 4 Changes of area and storage volume of the Lake Longbasaba from 1980 to 2015

    Results in Table 4 show that, from 1980 to 2000,the lake's area increased by 0.51±0.01 km2,its volume grew by 0.0241±0.0082 km3, corresponding to rates of 0.0261±0.0005 km2/a and 0.0013±0.0001 km3/a,re‐spectively, and the relative quantity of retained water in the glacial lake was 16.2%.From 2000 to 2010,the glacial lake area increased by 0.33±0.01 km2, and its storage volume swelled by 0.0112±0.0004 km3, or at rates of 0.0322±0.0006 km2/a and 0.0014±0.0004 km3/a,respectively.The relative quantity of retained water in the glacial lake was approximately 16.7%. From 2010 to 2015,the glacial lake area and volume increased by 0.23±0.01 km2and 0.0109±0.0004 km3, or at 0.0456±0.0009 km2/a and 0.0022±0.0001 km3/a, respectively.And the relative quantity of retained water in the lake was 19.7%. Thus, the changes in the area and storage volume of Longbasaba Lake have accelerated year by year, especially from 2010 to 2015, as illustrated in Figure 5. The increase rates of the lake area and stor‐age volume from 2010 to 2015 were respectively 1.75 and 1.76 times greater than from 1980 to 2000. More‐over, the relative quantity of retained water in the gla‐cial lake has also increased annually.

    5.3 Upward expansion of the proglacial lake

    Change in ice volume and glacial lake storage is often closely related to the regional climatic back‐ground. Some studies have processed and analyzed air temperature and precipitation data obtained at the meteorological stations located near the Longbasaba Glacier (e.g., Dingri Station, Lazi Station, Xigaze Station, Gyangzi Station, and Nielamu Station) (Yaoet al., 2010). It is found that the annual average tem‐perature at the five meteorological stations has shown a warming trend since their establishment, which is consistent with the general warming trend observed on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau since the 1960s (Renet al., 2004; Yanget al., 2006). Overall, from 1975 to 2015, the annual average temperature in the Kanchen‐junga region, where the Longbasaba Glacier is locat‐ed,increased significantly at a rate of 0.036°C/a(con‐fidence level: <0.001) (Zhaoet al., 2020). In particu‐lar, the temperature increase at the station nearest the Longbasaba Glacier was as fast as 0.37 °C/10a from 1971 to 2009, which is much higher than the global average temperature rise rate of 0.148 °C/10a (Parryet al., 2007). As the warm and humid airflow from the Indian Ocean is affected by the barrier effect of the Himalayas, overall, the precipitation around the Longbasaba Glacier has seen little changes (Wanget al.,2018).

    Some studies concluded that the glaciers on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau were stable or appeared to even advance slightly during 1970 to 1980, but then started to retreat from the end of 1980 into the 1990s,and the extent and speed of the retreat have increased gradual‐ly in recent years. The Landsat images used in this study show clearly that the boundary of the Longbasa‐ba Glacier has retreated.Over the study period,the re‐treating speed has accelerated, and the area vacated by the retreating glacier had become part of the gla‐cial lake. To summarize, under the background of re‐gional climate warming, the Longbasaba Glacier has recently developed a strong negative mass balance and has been retreating at a rising rate. The lake's re‐tention effect on glacier meltwater is the direct reason for the substantial increase in the area and storage vol‐ume of the Longbasaba Lake.Owing to the lagged re‐sponse of glaciers to climate change, the more obvi‐ous climate warming of recent years will drive the Longbasaba Glacier to continue to retreat, resulting in further expansion of the Longbasaba Lake.

    The basin topography of the Longbasaba Lake/Glacier was constructed, as illustrated in Figure 6.Considering that the glacier front often appears as a steep cliff, a coincident zone was chosen to merge the two overlapping parts of the bottom terrain. It is pre‐dicted that the lake could expand to a distance of 5,000 m from the glacial lake dam(Figure 6).

    Figure 6 The centerline profiles of the glacier bed,ice thickness,and lake depth.V1 represents the lake water volume before the fusion line at the merge location,and V2 represents the lake water volume after the fusion line.V1 is from the glacier bed of 2009,and V2 is from the bed of 1980

    6 Conclusions

    Based on the glacier polygon vector data and the digital elevation model data, three ice thickness distribution models were used to estimate the thick‐ness of the Longbasaba Glacier. By comparison with ground-penetrating radar data, the GlabTop model is found to have the best performance in simulating the ice thickness distribution with an uncertainty of 16.6%. Due to regional climate warming, from 1980 to 2015, the thickness of the Longbasaba Glacier de‐creased by 7.9±1.3 m, with an average annual reduc‐tion of 0.23±0.04 m. During the 35-year study period,the Longbasaba Glacier shrunk by 1.07±0.03 km2,and its ice volume declined to 1.41±0.21 km3as of 2015.

    The growth rate of the area and water storage of Longbasaba Lake has been accelerating. To a certain extent, the expansion of glacial lakes can delay the loss of regional glacier water resources due to climate warming. On average, approximately 17% of glacial meltwater from its host glacier is retained in this pro‐glacial lake every year. The basin morphology of the Longbasaba Glacier/Lake was reconstructed, and the glacial lake may extend from the lake dam by up to 5,000 m.

    Acknowledgments:

    The work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China(No.41701061,No.41761144075,No. 41771075, and No. 41271091). We gratefully ac‐knowledge Zhen Wu and Chao Yao for their help in the ice thickness measurements and processing.We al‐so thank Xuanru Zhao for the ALOS and TanDEM.

    少妇的逼好多水| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 成人二区视频| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 男女那种视频在线观看| 免费观看在线日韩| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 国产一区二区在线av高清观看| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 国产午夜精品一二区理论片| 国产av在哪里看| 成人三级黄色视频| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 日本在线视频免费播放| 全区人妻精品视频| 日韩三级伦理在线观看| 国产精品嫩草影院av在线观看| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 久久久久久伊人网av| 欧美激情在线99| 一级av片app| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 国产真实伦视频高清在线观看| or卡值多少钱| 性欧美人与动物交配| kizo精华| 男人舔奶头视频| 床上黄色一级片| 久久九九热精品免费| 国产 一区 欧美 日韩| 一级黄色大片毛片| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 97热精品久久久久久| 亚洲久久久久久中文字幕| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 深夜a级毛片| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 1000部很黄的大片| 国产国拍精品亚洲av在线观看| 午夜精品在线福利| 成人综合一区亚洲| ponron亚洲| 天堂√8在线中文| 毛片女人毛片| 少妇的逼水好多| 男女啪啪激烈高潮av片| av在线天堂中文字幕| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 国产伦精品一区二区三区四那| 国产高潮美女av| 99在线人妻在线中文字幕| 在现免费观看毛片| 麻豆一二三区av精品| 日韩人妻高清精品专区| 我要搜黄色片| 成年av动漫网址| 久久久久国产网址| eeuss影院久久| 日日干狠狠操夜夜爽| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 毛片一级片免费看久久久久| 级片在线观看| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 国产成人福利小说| 成人二区视频| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 国产高清视频在线观看网站| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 在线观看一区二区三区| 黄色欧美视频在线观看| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 天堂√8在线中文| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 欧美日韩在线观看h| 免费看美女性在线毛片视频| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 色综合色国产| 日日撸夜夜添| 成人av在线播放网站| a级一级毛片免费在线观看| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 国产探花极品一区二区| av免费观看日本| 一区二区三区四区激情视频 | 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 欧美xxxx黑人xx丫x性爽| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 免费观看在线日韩| 欧美性猛交╳xxx乱大交人| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 麻豆成人av视频| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 一本一本综合久久| 亚洲性久久影院| eeuss影院久久| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 成人欧美大片| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 久久6这里有精品| 亚洲第一电影网av| 久久精品人妻少妇| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 欧美最黄视频在线播放免费| 成人三级黄色视频| 午夜福利视频1000在线观看| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| av免费观看日本| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 99热这里只有是精品50| 国产精品福利在线免费观看| 亚洲欧美日韩卡通动漫| 国产欧美日韩精品一区二区| eeuss影院久久| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 久久国产乱子免费精品| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 一区福利在线观看| 一进一出抽搐动态| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 直男gayav资源| 麻豆久久精品国产亚洲av| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| av在线蜜桃| 嫩草影院精品99| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 九九在线视频观看精品| 九色成人免费人妻av| 国产69精品久久久久777片| 成年版毛片免费区| 黑人高潮一二区| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| www.色视频.com| 在线免费十八禁| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添av毛片| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 国产精品国产高清国产av| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 午夜激情欧美在线| 婷婷亚洲欧美| 中文精品一卡2卡3卡4更新| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 三级经典国产精品| 精品久久久久久久久av| 高清毛片免费看| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 青青草视频在线视频观看| 精品人妻一区二区三区麻豆| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 1024手机看黄色片| 大香蕉久久网| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 1000部很黄的大片| 好男人视频免费观看在线| 天堂网av新在线| 日本五十路高清| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 国产三级在线视频| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 久久这里有精品视频免费| 美女大奶头视频| 插阴视频在线观看视频| 国产免费男女视频| 亚洲欧洲日产国产| 国产综合懂色| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 一边摸一边抽搐一进一小说| 亚洲人成网站在线观看播放| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 少妇猛男粗大的猛烈进出视频 | 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 男的添女的下面高潮视频| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 免费黄网站久久成人精品| 一进一出抽搐gif免费好疼| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 乱系列少妇在线播放| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 长腿黑丝高跟| 午夜久久久久精精品| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 欧美精品一区二区大全| 97热精品久久久久久| 91精品一卡2卡3卡4卡| 菩萨蛮人人尽说江南好唐韦庄 | 国产精品久久久久久久久免| 久久欧美精品欧美久久欧美| 麻豆国产av国片精品| 日本熟妇午夜| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 插逼视频在线观看| 女人十人毛片免费观看3o分钟| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 亚洲国产高清在线一区二区三| 丰满乱子伦码专区| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 中文欧美无线码| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 两性午夜刺激爽爽歪歪视频在线观看| 日韩强制内射视频| 老女人水多毛片| 国产 一区精品| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 少妇高潮的动态图| 久久综合国产亚洲精品| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 亚洲自偷自拍三级| 级片在线观看| 亚洲欧美成人综合另类久久久 | 少妇的逼水好多| 日日撸夜夜添| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 哪个播放器可以免费观看大片| 国产真实乱freesex| 国语自产精品视频在线第100页| 国国产精品蜜臀av免费| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 观看免费一级毛片| 久久久久久久久久久免费av| 国产精品国产三级国产av玫瑰| 在线免费十八禁| 欧美日本视频| 午夜a级毛片| 亚洲婷婷狠狠爱综合网| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| av.在线天堂| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 少妇熟女欧美另类| 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 国产男人的电影天堂91| 成人二区视频| 日韩成人伦理影院| 久久久成人免费电影| 99在线视频只有这里精品首页| 18+在线观看网站| www日本黄色视频网| 美女内射精品一级片tv| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 91久久精品电影网| 欧美性猛交黑人性爽| 国产亚洲欧美98| www.av在线官网国产| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 男插女下体视频免费在线播放| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 男人舔奶头视频| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 国产精品永久免费网站| 免费观看在线日韩| 久久久久久大精品| 干丝袜人妻中文字幕| 网址你懂的国产日韩在线| 爱豆传媒免费全集在线观看| 国产麻豆成人av免费视频| 内射极品少妇av片p| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 亚洲人与动物交配视频| 国内精品美女久久久久久| av卡一久久| 久久精品国产亚洲av涩爱 | 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 天堂√8在线中文| 一本精品99久久精品77| 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 性色avwww在线观看| 久久鲁丝午夜福利片| 99九九线精品视频在线观看视频| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 亚洲内射少妇av| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 国产一区亚洲一区在线观看| 精品久久久久久久久久免费视频| 久久久久久久久久黄片| 日本在线视频免费播放| 99久久精品热视频| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 成人国产麻豆网| 99久国产av精品| 日产精品乱码卡一卡2卡三| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 日本黄大片高清| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 日韩欧美精品免费久久| 一级黄色大片毛片| 国产成人影院久久av| 国产精品.久久久| 日本免费a在线| 在线国产一区二区在线| a级毛片免费高清观看在线播放| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 国产色婷婷99| 久久这里只有精品中国| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产| h日本视频在线播放| 美女黄网站色视频| 中文字幕精品亚洲无线码一区| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 极品教师在线视频| 国产高清不卡午夜福利| 嫩草影院精品99| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久 | 六月丁香七月| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 不卡视频在线观看欧美| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 偷拍熟女少妇极品色| 人妻系列 视频| 赤兔流量卡办理| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 长腿黑丝高跟| 国产老妇伦熟女老妇高清| 久久人妻av系列| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 一本—道久久a久久精品蜜桃钙片 精品乱码久久久久久99久播 | 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 观看免费一级毛片| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 2022亚洲国产成人精品| 舔av片在线| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 久久久国产成人免费| 亚洲丝袜综合中文字幕| 精品一区二区三区人妻视频| 色吧在线观看| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 老女人水多毛片| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 看黄色毛片网站| 男人舔奶头视频| 青春草亚洲视频在线观看| 国产视频内射| 国产成人一区二区在线| 美女大奶头视频| 欧美zozozo另类| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 变态另类成人亚洲欧美熟女| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 国产精品麻豆人妻色哟哟久久 | 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 99riav亚洲国产免费| 久久久久久久久久成人| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 精品人妻视频免费看| 精品一区二区三区视频在线| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 成人漫画全彩无遮挡| 国内精品久久久久精免费| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 国产视频内射| 你懂的网址亚洲精品在线观看 | 午夜福利在线观看吧| 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 国产黄a三级三级三级人| 乱码一卡2卡4卡精品| 亚洲精品成人久久久久久| 韩国av在线不卡| 精品熟女少妇av免费看| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 尾随美女入室| 有码 亚洲区| 亚洲av成人精品一区久久| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 国产精品99久久久久久久久| 男女边吃奶边做爰视频| 天堂网av新在线| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 韩国av在线不卡| 神马国产精品三级电影在线观看| 午夜激情欧美在线| 久久热精品热| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 日本-黄色视频高清免费观看| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| or卡值多少钱| 青春草视频在线免费观看| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 亚洲成a人片在线一区二区| 亚洲精品日韩在线中文字幕 | 白带黄色成豆腐渣| 两个人视频免费观看高清| 亚洲欧美日韩高清在线视频| 丰满人妻一区二区三区视频av| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 极品教师在线视频| 日本色播在线视频| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 国产av麻豆久久久久久久| av天堂中文字幕网| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 在线国产一区二区在线| 黑人高潮一二区| 亚洲天堂国产精品一区在线| av国产免费在线观看| 成年免费大片在线观看| 1000部很黄的大片| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 国产精品永久免费网站| 午夜a级毛片| 日本黄色片子视频| 国产黄片美女视频| 综合色av麻豆| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 亚洲综合色惰| 夜夜夜夜夜久久久久| 亚洲精品自拍成人| 一级毛片久久久久久久久女| kizo精华| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 国产激情偷乱视频一区二区| 国产成人福利小说| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 精品午夜福利在线看| av在线老鸭窝| avwww免费| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 大型黄色视频在线免费观看| 成人性生交大片免费视频hd| 国产探花极品一区二区| 日本av手机在线免费观看| 岛国毛片在线播放| 亚洲内射少妇av| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 一进一出抽搐动态| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 成人av在线播放网站| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 久久久国产成人免费| 国产乱人视频| 国产中年淑女户外野战色| 2021天堂中文幕一二区在线观| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 亚洲国产精品sss在线观看| 老司机福利观看| 热99在线观看视频| 99久久人妻综合| av免费在线看不卡| 亚洲国产精品国产精品| 婷婷六月久久综合丁香| 欧美高清性xxxxhd video| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 国产视频内射| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 午夜精品在线福利| 日本黄大片高清| 1024手机看黄色片| 国产精品久久久久久亚洲av鲁大| 亚洲国产精品久久男人天堂| 一边亲一边摸免费视频| 国产成人freesex在线| 18禁在线无遮挡免费观看视频| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 嘟嘟电影网在线观看| 亚洲一级一片aⅴ在线观看| 97超碰精品成人国产| 久久韩国三级中文字幕| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 在线免费观看的www视频| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| av卡一久久| 在线观看av片永久免费下载| 欧美另类亚洲清纯唯美| 麻豆国产97在线/欧美| 九草在线视频观看| 久久久色成人| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 日韩成人av中文字幕在线观看| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看| 久久久久久伊人网av| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 能在线免费看毛片的网站| 午夜福利在线在线| 99久久人妻综合| 亚洲精品国产成人久久av| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 国产精品一区www在线观看| 亚洲成人中文字幕在线播放| 大又大粗又爽又黄少妇毛片口| 午夜亚洲福利在线播放| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 国产一级毛片在线| 长腿黑丝高跟| 九草在线视频观看| 久99久视频精品免费| 成人国产麻豆网| 国产探花在线观看一区二区| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 大香蕉久久网| 最近2019中文字幕mv第一页| 久久精品国产亚洲av香蕉五月| 精品久久久久久久人妻蜜臀av| 性插视频无遮挡在线免费观看| 亚洲激情五月婷婷啪啪| 久久精品国产亚洲av天美| 国产视频首页在线观看| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 日韩欧美三级三区| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| videossex国产| 人人妻人人澡欧美一区二区| 久久久久久久亚洲中文字幕| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 欧美一区二区精品小视频在线| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 淫秽高清视频在线观看| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 国产精品一二三区在线看| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 特级一级黄色大片| 国产淫片久久久久久久久| 国内揄拍国产精品人妻在线| 18+在线观看网站| 最近手机中文字幕大全| 免费观看a级毛片全部| 可以在线观看毛片的网站| 六月丁香七月| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| av黄色大香蕉| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站| 人妻夜夜爽99麻豆av| 内地一区二区视频在线| 成人特级av手机在线观看| 插逼视频在线观看| 中出人妻视频一区二区| 色哟哟·www| 国产精品一区二区在线观看99 | 国产成人91sexporn| 97超碰精品成人国产| 亚洲四区av| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 日韩在线高清观看一区二区三区| 毛片女人毛片| 午夜a级毛片| 久久亚洲国产成人精品v| 久久久色成人| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件| 中国美白少妇内射xxxbb| 亚洲欧美日韩高清专用| 国产精品av视频在线免费观看| 尾随美女入室| 久久九九热精品免费| 精品国产三级普通话版| 尾随美女入室| 成人av在线播放网站| 亚洲av.av天堂| 亚洲最大成人中文| 最近的中文字幕免费完整| 日韩欧美三级三区| 成年版毛片免费区| 国产69精品久久久久777片|