• <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.

    netflix在线观看网站| 色哟哟·www| 乱人视频在线观看| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 日本三级黄在线观看| 在线观看舔阴道视频| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 国产一区二区在线观看日韩| 我要搜黄色片| 18禁黄网站禁片午夜丰满| 日本三级黄在线观看| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 悠悠久久av| 久久久成人免费电影| 极品教师在线免费播放| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| 怎么达到女性高潮| 两个人的视频大全免费| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va | 97人妻精品一区二区三区麻豆| 亚洲av中文字字幕乱码综合| 简卡轻食公司| 久久婷婷人人爽人人干人人爱| 国产高清视频在线播放一区| 在线免费观看的www视频| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 国产精品,欧美在线| 免费搜索国产男女视频| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 脱女人内裤的视频| 亚洲色图av天堂| 精品久久久久久,| 色综合站精品国产| 亚洲人成伊人成综合网2020| 国产熟女xx| 日本免费一区二区三区高清不卡| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 日本黄色视频三级网站网址| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 国产人妻一区二区三区在| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 国产蜜桃级精品一区二区三区| 欧美激情在线99| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 国产精品日韩av在线免费观看| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 国产在视频线在精品| 看十八女毛片水多多多| 亚洲综合色惰| 亚洲成av人片免费观看| 啦啦啦韩国在线观看视频| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 一级黄片播放器| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 国产一级毛片七仙女欲春2| 村上凉子中文字幕在线| 亚州av有码| 欧美在线一区亚洲| 能在线免费观看的黄片| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 免费看a级黄色片| 我要看日韩黄色一级片| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 成年版毛片免费区| 色吧在线观看| 成人av在线播放网站| 高潮久久久久久久久久久不卡| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 变态另类丝袜制服| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 人人妻人人看人人澡| 日韩精品青青久久久久久| 综合色av麻豆| 很黄的视频免费| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区 | 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 免费看光身美女| 少妇丰满av| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 成人美女网站在线观看视频| 99久久久亚洲精品蜜臀av| 精品久久国产蜜桃| 国产亚洲欧美98| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 国产在线精品亚洲第一网站| 99热这里只有是精品在线观看 | 亚洲无线观看免费| 丁香六月欧美| 国产精品不卡视频一区二区 | 免费搜索国产男女视频| 午夜福利在线观看吧| 在线观看午夜福利视频| 久久九九热精品免费| 久9热在线精品视频| bbb黄色大片| 精品午夜福利视频在线观看一区| 精品99又大又爽又粗少妇毛片 | 婷婷亚洲欧美| 美女黄网站色视频| 可以在线观看的亚洲视频| 看黄色毛片网站| av在线观看视频网站免费| а√天堂www在线а√下载| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 久久国产精品影院| 欧美精品国产亚洲| 久久久国产成人精品二区| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 国产高清激情床上av| 18美女黄网站色大片免费观看| 国产综合懂色| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 一个人免费在线观看的高清视频| 99热这里只有精品一区| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 女生性感内裤真人,穿戴方法视频| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 三级男女做爰猛烈吃奶摸视频| 国产精品,欧美在线| 精品熟女少妇八av免费久了| 久久久久免费精品人妻一区二区| 3wmmmm亚洲av在线观看| 久久久国产成人免费| 亚洲第一电影网av| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 又爽又黄无遮挡网站| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 国产视频一区二区在线看| 国产精品一区二区三区四区久久| 成年免费大片在线观看| .国产精品久久| 在线免费观看的www视频| 精品人妻熟女av久视频| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 色吧在线观看| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 欧美不卡视频在线免费观看| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 成人鲁丝片一二三区免费| 国产精品98久久久久久宅男小说| 成年女人永久免费观看视频| 精品久久久久久成人av| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 制服丝袜大香蕉在线| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 欧美又色又爽又黄视频| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| www日本黄色视频网| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 亚洲第一区二区三区不卡| 丁香欧美五月| 简卡轻食公司| 亚洲va日本ⅴa欧美va伊人久久| 国产伦精品一区二区三区视频9| 国产亚洲av嫩草精品影院| 99久久99久久久精品蜜桃| 男人舔女人下体高潮全视频| 51国产日韩欧美| 国产精品乱码一区二三区的特点| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 久久久久性生活片| 成人特级黄色片久久久久久久| 国产精品爽爽va在线观看网站| 色综合欧美亚洲国产小说| 国产极品精品免费视频能看的| 听说在线观看完整版免费高清| 成熟少妇高潮喷水视频| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| av国产免费在线观看| 黄色女人牲交| 欧美黄色片欧美黄色片| 日本精品一区二区三区蜜桃| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 日韩欧美国产在线观看| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 一区二区三区四区激情视频 | 久久这里只有精品中国| 成年免费大片在线观看| 国产高潮美女av| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 又黄又爽又刺激的免费视频.| 此物有八面人人有两片| 高清毛片免费观看视频网站| 91九色精品人成在线观看| 久久久成人免费电影| 热99re8久久精品国产| 亚洲国产精品合色在线| 嫩草影院精品99| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 久久久久久九九精品二区国产| 一夜夜www| 真实男女啪啪啪动态图| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 一本久久中文字幕| 欧美乱色亚洲激情| 亚洲内射少妇av| 国产单亲对白刺激| 不卡一级毛片| 午夜老司机福利剧场| 中文字幕高清在线视频| 天堂动漫精品| 国产成人啪精品午夜网站| 91午夜精品亚洲一区二区三区 | 久久久久精品国产欧美久久久| 好男人电影高清在线观看| 嫩草影院入口| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 国产精品免费一区二区三区在线| 欧美成人免费av一区二区三区| 亚洲成人久久性| 51午夜福利影视在线观看| 免费观看精品视频网站| www.色视频.com| 在线看三级毛片| 精品不卡国产一区二区三区| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 色av中文字幕| 国产精品久久久久久久电影| 99久久无色码亚洲精品果冻| 久久久久久久久中文| 宅男免费午夜| 人妻久久中文字幕网| 久久精品人妻少妇| 嫩草影院入口| 黄色一级大片看看| 在线观看美女被高潮喷水网站 | 男女做爰动态图高潮gif福利片| 久99久视频精品免费| av福利片在线观看| 欧美zozozo另类| 99久久精品一区二区三区| 精品一区二区免费观看| 亚洲av不卡在线观看| 91字幕亚洲| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 黄色一级大片看看| 国产伦人伦偷精品视频| 看黄色毛片网站| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 欧美国产日韩亚洲一区| 欧美bdsm另类| 首页视频小说图片口味搜索| 国产三级中文精品| 国模一区二区三区四区视频| 国产毛片a区久久久久| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 久久人妻av系列| 亚洲国产精品999在线| 简卡轻食公司| 我的老师免费观看完整版| 丝袜美腿在线中文| 国产成+人综合+亚洲专区| 精品久久久久久久久av| 亚洲人成网站高清观看| 久久99热这里只有精品18| 国产亚洲欧美98| 悠悠久久av| 亚洲精品久久国产高清桃花| 黄色一级大片看看| 乱人视频在线观看| 18+在线观看网站| 精品午夜福利在线看| 欧美日韩亚洲国产一区二区在线观看| 日本与韩国留学比较| 简卡轻食公司| 91久久精品电影网| 亚洲五月婷婷丁香| 久久国产精品影院| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| h日本视频在线播放| 国产精品自产拍在线观看55亚洲| 亚洲三级黄色毛片| 十八禁网站免费在线| 蜜桃久久精品国产亚洲av| 午夜福利18| 国产欧美日韩一区二区精品| 身体一侧抽搐| 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 欧美最新免费一区二区三区 | 99精品在免费线老司机午夜| 亚州av有码| 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 97超级碰碰碰精品色视频在线观看| 日韩欧美 国产精品| 一区二区三区免费毛片| 亚洲av五月六月丁香网| 岛国在线免费视频观看| 在线十欧美十亚洲十日本专区| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 久久人妻av系列| 99久久精品热视频| 欧洲精品卡2卡3卡4卡5卡区| 久久精品夜夜夜夜夜久久蜜豆| 久久99热6这里只有精品| 精品人妻偷拍中文字幕| 欧美日韩福利视频一区二区| 三级国产精品欧美在线观看| 1024手机看黄色片| 国产一区二区三区视频了| 久久久久国内视频| 久久香蕉精品热| 日本 欧美在线| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 亚洲国产精品成人综合色| 国产v大片淫在线免费观看| 亚洲一区二区三区色噜噜| 日韩欧美精品免费久久 | 男人和女人高潮做爰伦理| 女同久久另类99精品国产91| 久久天躁狠狠躁夜夜2o2o| 日韩精品中文字幕看吧| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 国产精品亚洲美女久久久| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 久久久久久国产a免费观看| 免费观看精品视频网站| 精品午夜福利在线看| 最近最新中文字幕大全电影3| 久久精品久久久久久噜噜老黄 | 激情在线观看视频在线高清| 男女视频在线观看网站免费| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 亚洲五月天丁香| 久久久久国产精品人妻aⅴ院| 性色av乱码一区二区三区2| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 午夜福利免费观看在线| 18+在线观看网站| 色综合站精品国产| 9191精品国产免费久久| 18禁在线播放成人免费| 欧美绝顶高潮抽搐喷水| 久久6这里有精品| 熟妇人妻久久中文字幕3abv| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 亚洲经典国产精华液单 | 国内少妇人妻偷人精品xxx网站| 欧美色视频一区免费| 夜夜看夜夜爽夜夜摸| 日韩欧美精品免费久久 | 少妇人妻精品综合一区二区 | 国产伦在线观看视频一区| 又爽又黄a免费视频| 成人国产综合亚洲| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 亚洲不卡免费看| 亚洲 国产 在线| 搡老妇女老女人老熟妇| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 1000部很黄的大片| 久久6这里有精品| 日日摸夜夜添夜夜添小说| 少妇丰满av| 久久久久性生活片| 亚洲中文字幕一区二区三区有码在线看| 精品免费久久久久久久清纯| 啦啦啦观看免费观看视频高清| 精华霜和精华液先用哪个| 真人一进一出gif抽搐免费| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 久久精品影院6| 色av中文字幕| 国产免费一级a男人的天堂| av在线天堂中文字幕| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 国产午夜福利久久久久久| 色吧在线观看| aaaaa片日本免费| 成年版毛片免费区| 国产一区二区亚洲精品在线观看| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 欧美+日韩+精品| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 欧美色视频一区免费| 国产午夜精品论理片| 亚洲美女视频黄频| 青草久久国产| 亚洲一区二区三区不卡视频| 99久久精品热视频| 51国产日韩欧美| 老司机深夜福利视频在线观看| 免费电影在线观看免费观看| 国产视频内射| av在线蜜桃| 狠狠狠狠99中文字幕| 欧美潮喷喷水| 天堂动漫精品| 在线国产一区二区在线| 欧美一区二区亚洲| 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 久久香蕉精品热| 在现免费观看毛片| 中文字幕av成人在线电影| 国产日本99.免费观看| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 亚洲美女搞黄在线观看 | 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 久9热在线精品视频| 欧美+亚洲+日韩+国产| 日本黄色片子视频| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 丰满人妻熟妇乱又伦精品不卡| 亚洲激情在线av| 精品一区二区三区av网在线观看| 久久久久久久午夜电影| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 亚洲精品影视一区二区三区av| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| 91字幕亚洲| 亚洲一区高清亚洲精品| 99久久精品热视频| 精品国内亚洲2022精品成人| or卡值多少钱| 伦理电影大哥的女人| 欧美成人一区二区免费高清观看| 日本黄大片高清| 熟女人妻精品中文字幕| 少妇人妻一区二区三区视频| 在线播放国产精品三级| 长腿黑丝高跟| 成人永久免费在线观看视频| 精品久久久久久久末码| 成人毛片a级毛片在线播放| 日本撒尿小便嘘嘘汇集6| eeuss影院久久| 国产av一区在线观看免费| 精品午夜福利在线看| 少妇的逼水好多| 99国产综合亚洲精品| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 91在线观看av| 成人午夜高清在线视频| 动漫黄色视频在线观看| 久久久久性生活片| 国产单亲对白刺激| avwww免费| 一本精品99久久精品77| 国产av不卡久久| 中文资源天堂在线| 嫩草影院入口| 老熟妇仑乱视频hdxx| 欧美丝袜亚洲另类 | 日本免费a在线| 国产精品1区2区在线观看.| 在现免费观看毛片| 亚洲乱码一区二区免费版| 免费黄网站久久成人精品 | 欧美日韩国产亚洲二区| 老鸭窝网址在线观看| 身体一侧抽搐| 女人被狂操c到高潮| 精品一区二区免费观看| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 免费一级毛片在线播放高清视频| 少妇裸体淫交视频免费看高清| 亚洲精品一卡2卡三卡4卡5卡| 好男人在线观看高清免费视频| 亚洲av成人不卡在线观看播放网| 极品教师在线视频| 亚州av有码| 亚洲成av人片在线播放无| 91久久精品国产一区二区成人| 999久久久精品免费观看国产| 欧美色欧美亚洲另类二区| 亚洲片人在线观看| 日韩大尺度精品在线看网址| 国内毛片毛片毛片毛片毛片| 麻豆成人av在线观看| 精品欧美国产一区二区三| 最好的美女福利视频网| 天堂影院成人在线观看| 噜噜噜噜噜久久久久久91| 黄色配什么色好看| 欧美色视频一区免费| 亚洲成人精品中文字幕电影| 一卡2卡三卡四卡精品乱码亚洲| 欧美黑人欧美精品刺激| 国产亚洲精品av在线| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| ponron亚洲| 免费看日本二区| 亚州av有码| 欧美潮喷喷水| 99国产精品一区二区蜜桃av| 国内精品美女久久久久久| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 搡女人真爽免费视频火全软件 | 很黄的视频免费| 久久这里只有精品中国| 国产在线男女| 亚洲五月天丁香| 91字幕亚洲| 免费黄网站久久成人精品 | 成人高潮视频无遮挡免费网站| 国产精华一区二区三区| 色在线成人网| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 亚洲狠狠婷婷综合久久图片| 久久国产精品影院| 免费在线观看成人毛片| 久久精品国产清高在天天线| 日韩欧美在线乱码| 日韩欧美精品免费久久 | 色尼玛亚洲综合影院| 久久人人爽人人爽人人片va | 嫩草影院精品99| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 一个人观看的视频www高清免费观看| 波野结衣二区三区在线| 精品无人区乱码1区二区| 最新中文字幕久久久久| 国产精品永久免费网站| 亚洲av免费在线观看| 国产精品人妻久久久久久| 色精品久久人妻99蜜桃| 精品人妻1区二区| 黄色丝袜av网址大全| 综合色av麻豆| 99视频精品全部免费 在线| 99久久精品国产亚洲精品| 我的女老师完整版在线观看| 国产伦一二天堂av在线观看| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 亚洲美女黄片视频| 午夜精品一区二区三区免费看| 亚洲七黄色美女视频| 亚洲成人久久性| 亚洲人成网站在线播| 琪琪午夜伦伦电影理论片6080| 婷婷精品国产亚洲av| x7x7x7水蜜桃| 黄片小视频在线播放| 搞女人的毛片| 别揉我奶头~嗯~啊~动态视频| avwww免费| 久久久久久久久中文| 国产成人影院久久av| 自拍偷自拍亚洲精品老妇| 国产综合懂色| 亚洲av第一区精品v没综合| 每晚都被弄得嗷嗷叫到高潮| 色av中文字幕| 久久久久久大精品| 又紧又爽又黄一区二区| 麻豆av噜噜一区二区三区| 五月玫瑰六月丁香| 国产精品一区二区三区四区免费观看 | 九色成人免费人妻av| 成人国产综合亚洲| 在线免费观看不下载黄p国产 | 嫁个100分男人电影在线观看| 亚洲欧美日韩无卡精品| 国产精品电影一区二区三区| 中亚洲国语对白在线视频| av中文乱码字幕在线| 久久国产精品人妻蜜桃| 九九热线精品视视频播放| 99国产精品一区二区三区| 最近最新免费中文字幕在线| 不卡一级毛片| 最近在线观看免费完整版| 国产又黄又爽又无遮挡在线| 一级黄色大片毛片| 最后的刺客免费高清国语| 一区二区三区激情视频| 日韩有码中文字幕| 日韩欧美精品v在线| 直男gayav资源| 国产三级黄色录像| 亚洲国产日韩欧美精品在线观看| 超碰av人人做人人爽久久| 伊人久久精品亚洲午夜| 男人的好看免费观看在线视频| 国产精品一区二区性色av| 国产精品亚洲av一区麻豆| 成年女人看的毛片在线观看| 很黄的视频免费| 搡老岳熟女国产| 国产大屁股一区二区在线视频| 床上黄色一级片| 韩国av一区二区三区四区| 久久久久久久精品吃奶| 精品国产亚洲在线| 非洲黑人性xxxx精品又粗又长| 18禁黄网站禁片免费观看直播| 国产在视频线在精品| 国产一区二区激情短视频| 国产探花极品一区二区| 精品久久久久久久末码| 国产精品综合久久久久久久免费| 男人狂女人下面高潮的视频| 91麻豆精品激情在线观看国产| 波多野结衣巨乳人妻| 免费人成视频x8x8入口观看|