Glacial isostatic adjustment associated with the Barents Sea ice sheet: A modelling inter-comparison

Abstract

'Glacial isostatic adjustment associated with the Barents Sea ice sheet : a modelling inter-comparison.', Quaternary science reviews., 147 . pp. 122-135. Further information on publisher's website: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.

Reconstructing the retreat dynamics of the Bjørnøyrenna Ice Stream based on new 3D seismic data from the central Barents Sea

“…This is the first time that the main centre of ice mass during a maximum-style glaciation, like the LGM, has been suggested to be located so far. This empirically-based interpretation is, however, consistent with the most recent 630 numerical modelling of the BSIS from Auriac et al (2016) and Patton et al (2016, in review) 36 (Fig. 13).…”

Magnetotelluric Constraints on the Temperature, Composition, Partial Melt Content, and Viscosity of the Upper Mantle Beneath Svalbard

“…Previous GIA models of the Svalbard region show a large range of inferred upper mantle viscosities (Figure 7). Using six different ice sheet models, Auriac et al (2016) modeled elastic lithospheric thicknesses ranging from 41 to 120 km and homogenous upper mantle viscosities ranging from 2 to 5 × 10 20 Pa s from within a search area of 5 × 10 19 to 5 × 10 21 Pa s. The best fitting model had an elastic lithospheric thickness of 96 km and an upper mantle viscosity of 3 × 10 20 Pa s. The authors argued that the uncertainty in upper mantle viscosity is partly a function of uncertainties in the past behavior of the Barents Sea Ice Sheet and partly due to uncertainties in relative sea level data. Schmidt et al (2014) came to a similar conclusion when comparing three different ice sheet models for Fennoscandian GIA, finding that the GIA data can be fit equally well with all three ice histories with homogenous upper mantle viscosities ranging from 0.3 to 5 × 10 21 Pa s and lithospheric thicknesses ranging from 120 to 160 km.…”

“…Blue and red lines show the viscosities calculated from the MT data, as in Figure 6. Solid black line is the homogenous viscosity calculated by Auriac et al (2016; A16) to fit GIA data and the green band shows the search range of viscosities used in this calculation. Gray lines show the range of layered viscosity values calculated by Steffen & Kaufmann (2005; SK05) to fit GIA data and the pale gray band shows the search range used in this calculation.…”

Subglacial sediment pathways and deglacial chronology of the northern Barents Sea Ice Sheet

“…Traditional BSIS reconstructions, which are based on onshore geological mapping and chronologies, and isostatic inversion models, place a large central Barents Sea ice dome over the Kong Karls Land-Storbanken area during the LGM (Fig. New isostatic modelling of the Barents Sea region, using different ice-load combinations and mantle rheologies, suggests that although a central Barents Sea dome is a slightly better fit to terrestrial emergence data, a configuration of smaller ice domes over the island archipelagos (Svalbard, Franz Josef Land) and thinner central Barents Sea ice also fits the observed emergence patterns (Kachuck et al 2014;Auriac et al 2016). An alternative ice-dome location over southern Hinlopenstretthe strait of water between Spitsbergen and Nordaustlandet (for location areas offshore eastern Svalbard ( Fig.…”

“…1A) led Andreassen et al (2014) and Bjarnad ottir et al (2014) to suggest an early phase of ice flow (full-glacial) compatible with the large central Barents Sea ice dome, and a later (deglacial) ice-flow phase with domes located over Hinlopenstret and topographical highs including Storbanken. New isostatic modelling of the Barents Sea region, using different ice-load combinations and mantle rheologies, suggests that although a central Barents Sea dome is a slightly better fit to terrestrial emergence data, a configuration of smaller ice domes over the island archipelagos (Svalbard, Franz Josef Land) and thinner central Barents Sea ice also fits the observed emergence patterns (Kachuck et al 2014;Auriac et al 2016). In addition, the idea of several smaller domes within a larger BSIS is in line with reconstructed ice-sheet configura-tions for the last glacial period, which show ice domes appearing first over Svalbard and Franz Josef Land at 32-27 ka during ice-sheet build up and ice persisting over the archipelagos at 15-12 ka during deglaciation (Hughes et al 2016).…”