Dynamic controls on glacier basal motion inferred from surface ice motion

Abstract

[1] Current heuristic laws that relate the motion of glaciers due to sliding along the bed to the subglacial water pressure fail to reproduce variations in sliding speed on timescales of specific hydrologic events, such as lake drainage, rainfall, or surging. This may be due to the importance of subglacial cavity evolution and shifts in the glacier stress field, both of which are not accounted for in typical sliding laws. We use multiple time series of surface motion over a 66-day period at Brei*amerkurjökull, Iceland, to infer changes in bed separation and longitudinal force budget. We observe multiple, distinct periods of increased surface motion and uplift corresponding to periods of rainfall and/or increased temperatures. We find consistent hysteresis and lags between motion and variations in both the bed separation and longitudinal stress gradient that we attribute to the redistribution of normal stresses at the bed during cavity growth. Increases in the longitudinal stress gradient suggest a downglacier stress transfer during increased basal motion that is consistent with increased drainage system efficiency toward the terminus. Our results suggest that the transient evolution of the subglacial drainage system and shifts in the glacier stress field are important controls on basal motion.Citation: Howat, I. M., S. Tulaczyk, E. Waddington, and H. Björnsson (2008), Dynamic controls on glacier basal motion inferred from surface ice motion,

Volume and mass changes of the Greenland ice sheet inferred from ICESat and GRACE

“…overlapping footprint analysis versus repeat track analysis). Howat et al (2008) tried to overcome the limitations in spatial resolution by combining ICESat with difference digital elevation models based on ASTER optical imagery. They derived a volume change of −108 km 3 yr −1 (2002)(2003)(2004)(2005) for the south-eastern part of Greenland, which roughly corresponds to our basin 4.…”

Insights into spatial sensitivities of ice mass response to environmental change from the SeaRISE ice sheet modeling project II: Greenland

“…A mass loss that is comparable to the C1S1 forcing after 100 years of simulations can only be obtained with the amplified atmospheric forcing C3, or with the S2 sliding experiment. Thus, without the inclusion of processes associated with atmospheric warming that have the potential for additional water to reach the base of the ice sheet (for example increased production of surface meltwater [ Zwally et al ., ; Parizek and Alley , ; van de Wal et al ., ; Das et al ., ] or rain [ Howat et al ., ]), predictions of future sea level will be underestimated. However, increased amount of basal water could also create a better hydrologic network under the ice, allowing water to be more easily evacuated, resulting in glacier slowdown rather than speedup [ Schoof , ].…”

Land Ice and Sea Level Rise: A Thirty-Year Perspective

“…Ice streams also figured prominently in the NRC/DOE report, a reflection in part of the attention that had been focused on fast-moving Antarctic and Greenland ice within the research community in recent years (e.g., Hughes, 1977;Lingle, et al, 1981 The ipcc er a does not yet exist, unfortunately" 1910-1990 1910-1990 1910-1990 2007 ipcc fourth assessment (lemke et al, 2007) rate of loss +0.14 to +0.28 -0.14 to +0.55 +0.55 to +0.99 period of observation 199319931993(Houghton et al, 1990. By the time of the 1995 Second Assessment (Houghton et al, 1996), 1989, 1993MacAyeal et al, 2003;O'Neel et al, 2005;Joughin et al, 2003Joughin et al, , 2008Howat et al, 2008;Winberry et al, 2009;Motyka et al, 2011). A picture of ice sheet motion, growth, and decay is emerging, becoming progressively more detailed and finely sliced in time, and analyses appear in rapid succession, reporting overlapping (and, at times, conflicting) results (Velicogna, 2009;van den Broeke et al, 2009).…”