CR
Cryospheric Sciences

Image of the Week

Image of the Week – Karthaus Summer School 2017

Gloriously cloudless day for the fieldtrip to the Ötztal Alps [Credit: C. Reijmer].

Glaciologists often undertake fieldwork in remote and difficult to access locations, which perhaps explains why they happily travel to similar locations to attend meetings and workshops. The Karthaus Summer School, which focuses on Ice Sheets and Glaciers in the Climate System, is no exception. The idyllic village of Karthaus, located in the narrow Schnalstal valley in Südtirol (Italy), has been hosting this 10-day glaciology course nearly every year since 1995. In September, an international crowd of some 30+ PhD students and postdocs, and 11 lecturers assembled in Karthaus for the 2017 edition of this famous course, for an intensive program of lectures, food, some science, more food (with wine!), and lots of socialising.


The lecture theatre with a backdrop of green hills, on the day the cows came down from the hills [Credit: D. Medrzycka].

The morning sessions

A typical morning of the course involved four hours of lectures, which covered a wide range of topics including continuum mechanics, thermodynamics, ice-ocean interactions, ice cores, geophysics, and geodynamics, with a special focus on numerical modelling and its applications for investigating ice-climate interactions. The lectures covered fundamentals processes, their applications and limitations, and current knowledge gaps for a wide range of complex concepts related to ice dynamics. All our lecturers happily answered our (many) additional questions during the coffee and cake breaks, enjoyed in the fresh mountain air outside the lecture theatre.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

The biggest challenge was not the group work itself, but trying to not get distracted by the sun and the hills surrounding us [Credit: V. Zorzut].

The afternoon sessions

After a three-course lunch, we spent the afternoon sessions applying the theory learned in the morning lectures. The group projects were designed to get us to go into more detail on certain topics, and work on real-world applications for specific research problems. We presented the results of our work at the end of the course during a 15 minute group presentation. For those who could afford a bit of free time after these sessions, the rest of the afternoon could be spent either hiking or trail running in the steep hills overlooking the village (trying to beat I. Hewitt’s time up Kruezspitze), playing football, chilling in the sauna, or catching up on some sleep before dinner.

 

The evenings

Everyone who has ever attended the Karthaus course mentions the food, complementing both the quality and (legendary) quantity of it. Every evening, we were served a memorable five course meal accompanied by generous amounts of local wine. Dessert was followed by musical entertainment, with inspired performances by Frank Pattyn on the piano. On the last evening, Frank was accompanied by Johannes Oerlemans who treated us to two of his original tango arrangements on the guitar, followed by a passionate rendition of Jacques Brel’s Le port d’Amsterdam by our own Kevin Bulthuis (vocals). We wrapped up each day of the course in the local bar, socialising, playing card games, sampling the local beers, and making our way through the many different flavours of schnaps and grappa. Big thanks to the owners, Paul and Stefania Grüner, and staff (with a special shout-out to Hannes) of the Goldene Rose Hotel, and the village of Karthaus, for taking great care of us!

Frank Pattyn (piano) and Johannes Oerlemans (guitar) performing an original tango arrangement [Credit: D. Medrzycka].


 

Out and about

On the penultimate day of the course the group headed to a number of glaciers in the Ötztal Alps. The excursion, which happened to take place on a perfectly cloudless day, gave us the opportunity to observe first hand the changes affecting glaciers in the region, and the impact of these retreating ice masses on the landscape and humans inhabiting it. It also provided a much needed break from the intense week! After walking down the ski slopes of the Hochjochferner, a small valley glacier accessible by cable car from Kurzras, we stopped to enjoy the sun and have lunch at the Schöne Aussicht (Bellavista) hut (2845 m a.s.l.). Those with more energy scrambled up to the ridge running along the Italian/Austrian border (3270 m a.s.l.), through at times knee-deep snow, to take a peak at the Hintereisferner, a valley glacier on the Austrian side of the border. Four of us continued on along the ridge, and by chance visited the laser scanner (LiDAR) system operated by researchers from the University of Innsbruck, used to monitor changes in surface elevation on the glacier.

Standing on the ridge running along the Italian/Austrian border. View onto the Hintereisferner [Credit: D. Medrzycka].


 

Final thoughts

The 10 day course was certainly an intensive (and intense) experience, and I would recommend it to all glaciology students without reservations, whether they are looking for a basic introduction to ice dynamics, or aiming to fill a few knowledge gaps. Whilst some of the topics covered in the course were only remotely related to my own PhD research (and far out of my comfort zone!), the lectures and project work forced me to think in alternate ways. Although I may have finished the course with more questions than I had at the start, I now know where to go look for the answers!

A big part of the experience was without a doubt the social aspect of the course. Between the never ending and excellent food (as a result of which some of us developed “food babies”), and the long evenings at the local bar (resulting in increasing amounts of sleep deprivation), there were plenty of opportunities to talk science, gain new insights into our ongoing research, and discuss ideas for future projects. As with all great Summer Schools, one of the major perks was the opportunity to hang out with fellow students, expand our network of fellow researchers, and establish the groundwork for continued professional collaborations. Huge thanks to the convenor, Johannes Oerlemans, the village of Karthaus, and all the lecturers and fellow students for a memorable 10 days! I am looking forward to working with all of you in the future.

The crowd of the Karthaus summerschool: 2017 edition [Credit: C. Reijmer].

Edited by Morgan Gibson and Clara Burgard


Dorota Medrzycka is a PhD candidate at the University of Ottawa (Canada), working with Luke Copland. Her research focuses on the dynamics of glaciers and ice caps in the Canadian High Arctic, with a focus on ice flow instabilities (including glacier surging). Her project combines field studies and remote sensing techniques to monitor ice motion, and gain insight into the factors controlling the variability in ice dynamics in the Canadian Arctic. Contact: dorota.medrzycka@uottawa.ca.

Image of the Week – The true size of Greenland

Fig. 1: Greenland is slightly bigger than  Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom together [Credit: The True Size].

Greenland is a critical part of the world, which is regularly covered on this blog, because it hosts the second largest ice body on Earth – the Greenland Ice Sheet. This ice sheet, along with its small peripheral ice caps, contributes by 43% to current sea-level rise.

However, despite being the world’s largest island Greenland, appears disproportionately large on the most common world maps (Fig. 2). Our new image of the week takes a look at the true size of Greenland…


Fig. 2: World (Mercator) map used by many online mapping applications. [Credit: D. Strebe/Wikimedia commons]

How big is Greenland?

We could simply tell you that Greenland stretches over ~2 million km². For most people, this figure would however not speak for itself.   Luckily, The True Size is a web application that comes to our rescue by enabling us to compare the true size of all the countries in the world.

As we can see in Fig. 1, Greenland is in fact only slightly bigger than Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Portugal, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom together.

Similarly, Greenland is also (Fig. 3):

  • roughly the size of the Democratic Republic of Congo

  • could fit 1.4 times in India

  • 4.2 times smaller than than the United States

  • could fit 3.5 times in Australia

Fig. 3: Greenland vs Democratic Republic of Congo, Australia, the United States and India. [Credit: The True Size]

 Greenland is therefore big but not as big as what is suggested by the most common maps (Fig. 2). As a result, one can therefore wonder why the most popular world maps distort the size of the countries.

All maps are wrong but some are useful

To map the world, cartographers must project a curved surface on a flat piece of paper. There are different approaches to do so but all distort the earth surface in some ways. For instance, conformal projections preserve angles and shapes but change the size of the countries, whereas equal-area projections conserve the sizes but distort the shapes. As a result, a map projection that suits all purposes does not exist. Instead, the choice of the projection will depend on the use of the map.

Fig. 4: Mercator cylindrical projection [Credit: National Atlas of the United States]

The most popular projection, the Mercator projection (Fig. 2),  is used by many online mapping applications (e.g. google maps, OpenStreetMap, etc.). In Mercator maps, the Earth’s surface is projected on a cylinder that surrounds the globe (Fig. 4). The cylinder is then unrolled to produce a flat map that preserves the shapes of landmasses but tends to stretch countries towards the poles. This is why the size of Greenland is exaggerated in many world maps.

Why does google map use the Mercator projection then?

If Google Maps and other web mapping services rely on the Mercator projection, it is not to make countries at high latitudes appear bigger, but, because those tools are mainly intended to be used at local scales. The fact that the Mercator projection preserves angles and shapes therefore ensures minimal distortions at the city-level: two perpendicular streets will always appear perpendicular in Google Maps. This is not necessarily the case at high latitudes with projections that preserves areas (as can be seen here).

Interested in this topic? Then, you might enjoy this video !

Image of the Week: Petermann Glacier

Figure 1: Satellite images showing the front of Petermann glacier from spring to autumn 2016 [Credit: LandSAT 8 (NASA) and L. Dyke]

Our image of the week shows the area around the calving front of Petermann Glacier through the spring, summer, and autumn of 2016. Petermann Glacier, in northern Greenland, is one of the largest glaciers of the Greenland Ice Sheet. It terminates in the huge Petermann Fjord, more than 10 km wide, surrounded by 1000 m cliffs and plunging to more than 1100 m below sea level at its deepest point. In 2010 and 2012, the glacier caught the world’s attention with two large events, which caused the glacier to retreat to a historically unprecedented position.


In Fig. 1 we see the changes happening through the season on Petermann glacier – and they are huge. The animated map highlights many different processes. As areas emerge from the Polar night at the start of spring, the shadows quickly shorten and the light levels become noticeably higher.  This is followed by the melting of the snow, first on south-facing slopes, and eventually to on the high-elevation areas in the mountains. As the sun returns, meltwater starts forming on the surface of the glacier, this is visible as vast turquoise lakes. Finally, the sea ice in the fjord succumbs to the seasonal warming of the ocean and atmosphere, it thins, and then completely disintegrates at around day 205.

The change in the glacier is perhaps the most interesting phenomenon. It is possible to observe the glacier flowing and advancing into the fjord. In addition, several large rifts near the front open through the course of the year. These will eventually spread across the front of the glacier and a new, huge iceberg will be born. These rifts are being closely monitored, and it is likely that when the iceberg calves it will bring cause Petermann Glacier to retreat to a new historical minimum.

The image above is an example of a new type of map, it takes cartography into the 4th dimension—time. Technological advances have only recently made it possible to create a map like this; with the launch of Landsat 8 and Sentinel-2 it is now possible to receive regular, high-resolution, and free satellite images of high latitude areas. These data have been projected onto a new, high quality digital elevation model (Howat et al., 2013) to create this map.

 

Further Reading

Howat, I. M., Negrete, A., and Smith, B. E. (2014). The Greenland Ice Mapping Project (GIMP) land classification and surface elevation datasetsThe Cryosphere8 (1): 1509–1518

Edited by Nanna B. Karlsson


Laurence Dyke is a postdoctoral researcher at The Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland (GEUS) in Copenhagen (DK). His work is primarily focussed on understanding the history of the Greenland Ice Sheet, from both marine and terrestrial perspectives. He works with marine sediment cores and surface exposure dating to investigate what triggered changes in glacier behaviour over the last 12 thousand years. Understanding the past is key to predicting the future! He tweets as @LaurenceDyke

Image of the Week – Powering up the ground in the search for ice

Electric Resistivity Tomography profile of the north-facing slope of the Rohrbachstein in canton Bern, Switzerland [Credit: University of Fribourg, Switzerland].

In an earlier post, we talked briefly about below-ground ice and the consequences of its disappearing. However, to estimate the consequences of disappearing ground ice, one has to know that there actually is ice in the area of study. How much ice is there – and where is it? As the name suggests, below-ground ice is not so easy to spot with the naked eye. Using geophysical methods, however, it is possible to obtain a good idea of the presence and whereabouts of ground ice, and of frozen ground, in an area of interest.


Looking for ice

Before starting a geophysical survey, which requires instrumentation and time, you might want to take a look at your area of interest and estimate, whether ice presence is even an option. The first indicator is temperature, which has to be in the favor of permafrost presence. Other indicators for presence are surface features such as mounds that could be caused by considerable frost heave, lobes perpendicular to the slope and front angles exceeding the critical angle of repose. They can indicate that ice has had an influence on the geomorphology in the area.

If you suspect ground ice in your area of interest, and you want to confirm or rule out your suspicion as well as investigate the extent of the ice, you might consider doing a geophysical survey. There are a few useful inherent properties of ice that make it possible to distinguish it from rock, air or water. These properties will determine the choice of geophysical methods to use. This week, we will illustrate two methods which, when combined, can be useful tools for determining ground ice presence or absence. The test subject is an area of suspected frozen ground just below 3000 m altitude – the Rohrbachstein in canton Bern, Switzerland.

Electrical resistivity tomography

In an electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) survey, we measure the potential difference (ΔU) of a material, over a given distance, when applied with a certain current strength (I). From the fact that resistance is computed by dividing U by I, the electrical resistivity of the material can be estimated. The resistivity can be seen as the reciprocal of the material’s electrical conductivity and is measured in mΩ. Practically, an array of electrodes are placed in the ground with a certain spacing and a certain length of the profile. The spacing and length of the profile determine the resolution and penetration depth. All electrodes are then connected with a cable to each other and to the instrument, which works as both a voltmeter and a source of current. Then, systematic measurements of potential difference can be conducted throughout the whole profile.

Water has an electrical resistivity of 10-100 mΩ, whereas ground ice has a resistivity of 103 to 106 mΩ. This makes this method practical for distinguishing liquid from frozen water in permafrost areas. The resistivity of rock is between 102 to 105 mΩ, and the resistivity of sediment depends on the mixture of rock, water, ice and air. Air has an extremely high resistivity, which should be easy to point out, but since below-ground material is mostly a mixture of all the mentioned components, things are very often more blurry. What one actually looks for in the measurements is areas of higher, lower and in-between electrical resistivity values. An example of such a case is displayed in our Image of the Week.

Our Image of the Week shows the resistivity profile of a slope at just below 3000 m altitude in the Bernese Alps, Switzerland. For comparison, the same slope is shown in a normal photo in Fig. 2 (not to scale). Blue colours mark high resistivities, red mark low, and green mark somewhere in between. From this profile, we might conclude that the upper layers of the lower slope are moist and underlain by bedrock (red and green, respectively, whereas the upper slope seems to be moist below an area of high resistivity (red below green-blue). Additionally, there is a significant feature of high resistivity in the middle of the slope. This slope could contain ice in those blue areas. However, the high resistivities could also be caused by air volume in this blocky site. To be certain, we can use an additional method.

Fig. 2: Photo of the north-facing slope of the Rohrbachstein in canton Bern, Switzerland. The photo was taken facing east and shows the upper part of the slope analyzed with ERT and seismic refraction, but is not to scale compared with the Image of the Week and Fig.4 [Credit: Laura Helene Rasmussen].

Seismic refraction analysis

To distinguish air from ice, we can do a survey of the subsurface using seismic refraction analysis. Seismic refraction surveys use the fact that the speed (in ms-1) of sound wave propagation is different through different materials. The speed is estimated by placing geophones in a profile line and creating a sound wave by hitting the ground with a sledgehammer in between them (Fig. 3). The geophones detect the sound wave from this hammer blow one by one as it travels through the subsurface, and the time it takes for each geophone to receive the signal is noted. This allows us to calculate the seismic (sound) velocity from the distance and travel time. Different layers in the subsurface with different properties, and thus different seismic velocities, will cause the sound wave arriving at their surface to be refracted with different delay compared to the direct wave (which travels straight from the hammer to each geophone), and that fact can reveal properties of below-ground material.

Fig. 3: Hammer-swinging doing a seismic refraction profile [Credit: Hanne Hendricks].

The advantage of this method for ground ice studies is that ice has a seismic velocity of about 3000 ms-1, whereas sound waves move through air with only 330 ms-1. Thus, a rough profile of that same slope from our Image of the Week and Fig. 2 using seismic refraction geophysics looks like Fig. 4.

In this profile, red colours denote high seismic velocities and blue colours are very low seismic velocities. The high-resistivity feature in the middle of the ERT profile at about 3-4 m depth, which could contain air or ice, would cause red-purple colours (high velocities) if the feature contained ice, and blue colours (low velocities), if it was air volume. As seen from Fig. 4, colours at depths are reddish and certainly not blue, which makes it likely that the ERT feature at 3-4 m depth is actually an ice body. The high-resistivity area in the surface layers of the upper profile, however, corresponds to the blue colours in this seismic refraction profile, and with high resistivity, but low seismic velocity, this area is most likely air volume and not ground ice.

Fig. 4: Seismic refraction profile of the north-facing slope of the Rohrbachstein in canton Bern, Switzerland [Credit: University of Fribourg, Switzerland].

The method depends on the setting

Ground ice does, obviously, come in different forms in different environments, and so the methodological considerations when using geophysical techniques vary in different settings. In this case, we look for ice in a blocky slope. That type of setting presents challenges such as contact problems between sensors and the ground, which can impede the measurements. That issue would not worry a scientist mapping ground ice in a moist Arctic lowland site. The lowland scientist might, however, have to consider resolution issues or salt content in her soil solution when evaluating the results. Perhaps she wants to combine with yet other methods such as drilling permafrost cores for detailed information on ice- and sediment type. As non-destructive methods, covering relatively large spatial areas without having to get a drill rig to the high mountains or a remote Arctic area, however, geophysics can be a good option for ground ice detection.

Further reading

Edited by Clara Burgard and Emma Smith


Laura Helene Rasmussen is a Danish permafrost scientist working at the Center for Permafrost, University of Copenhagen. She has spent many seasons in Greenland, working with the Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Programme and is interested in Arctic soils as an ecosystem component, their climate sensitivity, functioning and simply understanding what goes on below.

Image of the Week – ROVing in the deep…

Aggregates of sea ice algae seen from the ocean below by the ROV [Credit: Katlein et al. (2017)].

Robotics has revolutionised ocean observation, allowing for regular high resolution measurements even in remote locations or harsh conditions. But the ice-covered regions remain undersampled, especially the ice-ocean interface, as it is still too risky and complex to pilot instruments in this area. This is why it is exactly the area of interest of the paper from which our Image of the week is taken from!


This is sea ice… seen from the ocean

Traditionally, only divers (and maybe seals, fish, krill, belugas, etc.) have been able to see what is happening just under the sea ice, in the ocean. That is no routine activity – I personally have not been in a fieldwork campaign involving a diver. It is extremely dangerous to dive in such cold waters, and the diver is limited to a small area around the entry hole, which might refreeze really fast. The most common method is to drill small holes from the top of the sea ice to the ice-ocean interface at specific locations instead, and collect the bottom of the resulting ice core. There are obvious problems with this method:

  • drilling takes a lot of time and effort;
  • you cannot drill everywhere, since it becomes unsafe if the ice is too thin (you still have to be standing on the ice to do the drilling);
  • the location of your core has to be representative of what you are sampling.

This is why researchers are trying to more often use sea robots, which can take measurements over a large area while the researchers are safe somewhere else. But most robots that are now used to monitor the ocean are not adapted to ice-covered regions, and the few that are require a lot of specifically trained technicians to operate them and/or can only perform very specific tasks.

Our Image of the Week was taken by a new robot, “The Beast”, whose specificities are described in the recently published Katlein et al. (2017). In brief, it is ice-resistant, small, very manoeuvrable, can be operated by only one or two people from a cosy hut on the ice, and contains any possible sensor you can think of (even a small water bottle for sampling, and a net). It belongs to the family of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROV), which means that it is connected to the operator by a cable – if anything goes wrong under the ice, just pull on the leash!

And thanks to ROVs, we can see (e.g. on this Image of the Week) that the thickness of the sea ice, hence the amount of light that goes through it and the whole sympagic communities vary a lot over small regions.

What the pilot sees when driving the ROV by a sea ice pressure ridge [Credit: Katlein et al. (2017)].

Why do we need such observations?

  1. Robustness: it will not totally replace the traditional ice coring, for some studies still need to get the actual ice. But it will ensure that the choice of locations make sense, or help extrapolate the localised coring results to a larger region.
  2. Validation: for basin-wide studies, we need satellites. But satellite retrievals, especially those for sea ice thickness, still need in-situ measurements for validation. ROVs can provide more validation points than traditional point-coring for the same mission duration, hence ultimately improving algorithms.
  3. Seeing is believing: for anything from outreach to future fieldwork preparation, videos captured by an ROV are an unvaluable tool. Ecologists can even see which species live there (or discover new ones).

 

Further reading

Edited by Clara Burgard

Image of the Week – Bioalbedo: algae darken the Greenland Ice Sheet

Image of the Week – Bioalbedo: algae darken the Greenland Ice Sheet

Most of the energy that drives glacier melting comes directly from sunlight, with the amount of melting critically dependent on the amount of solar energy absorbed compared to that reflected back into the atmosphere. The amount of solar energy that is reflected by a surface without being absorbed is called the albedo. A low albedo surface absorbs more of the energy that hits it compared to a high albedo surface. Our Image of the Week shows patches of dark grey-brown algal blooms on the Greenland Ice Sheet, giving the surface a surprisingly low albedo.


The colour of ice

Clean ice and snow are among the most reflective natural materials on Earth’s surface making them important ‘coolers’ in Earth’s climate system. The term ‘albedo’ describes how effectively a material absorbs or reflects incoming solar energy – it is the ratio of downwelling light arriving at a surface to the amount of upwelling light leaving it. The albedo of fresh, clean snow can be as high as 90%, meaning that out of all the solar energy reaching the surface only 10% is absorbed. However, the albedo of ice and snow can vary widely. This is important because the albedo determines how much of the incoming solar energy is retained within the snow or ice and used to raise the temperature or drive melting. It therefore controls snow and ice energy balance to a large extent.

There are several reasons why the albedo of snow and ice can vary. First, once ice crystals begin to melt they lose their delicate structures that efficiently scatter light and develop rounded granular shapes. Meltwater generated by snow or ice melt fills the gaps between the grains, promoting forward scattering of light deeper into the ice, rather than scattering back towards the surface. This increases the distance travelled through media where absorption can occur, and therefore lowers the albedo as the light is less likely to escape the material after it enters. The more melt, the greater this effect. Second, other materials such as dust or rock debris can enter the snow or ice. These ‘impurities’ generally absorb light more effectively than the ice crystals themselves and therefore reduce the albedo. However, this depends upon their concentration, optical properties and proximity to the surface. Additionally, whether the impurities are inside or outside the ice crystals, where on the planet the material is and the time of day are also important.

Any impurity that darkens a mass of ice or snow increases the amount of solar energy absorbed compared to when the material is impurity-free. This means that impurities promote melting, which is in itself an albedo reducing process. Therefore, the impact of impurities on albedo is non-linear and greater than the direct effect of their absorption alone. There are many different impurities that commonly lower the albedo of ice and snow, including mineral dusts and black carbon (e.g. from fossil fuel combustion). However, there is also a growing literature on another form of impurity that darkens ice and snow on glaciers and ice sheets on both hemispheres: biological growth (also see this previous post). Algae are the primary biological albedo-reducers on ice and snow. Photosynthetic microalgae bloom on the surface where light is abundant, which provides them with energy that they use to turn carbon dioxide and water into sugars. This in turn provides food for other microorganisms. In doing so, they darken the ice surface simply because the algal cells are more effective absorbers than the ice crystals. However, as the algae become exposed to increasing light intensities, they produce pigments that act as sun shields, protecting their cellular machinery from the damaging effects of too much light. This effect enhances the biological darkening and increases the energy absorbed within the snow or ice.

Biological darkening

There are several distinct microbial habitats on glaciers and ice sheets. Snow algae are a feature of melting snowpacks that colour snow surfaces green early in the year and red later because prolonged exposure to sunlight causes them to produce red ‘sunscreen’ pigments (see this previous post). Their influence on snow albedo has yet to be determined, although they have been shown to change the amount of visible light reflected from the surface (Lutz et al., 2014) and in Antarctica they have been shown to influence light absorption at depth within the snowpack (Hodson et al., 2017). Some bacteria have been identified feeding upon the algae, and the algal blooms also provide food for red coloured ice worms. This is probably why, in ‘The History of Animals’, Aristotle wrongly attributed the red discoloration of patches of snow to red worms rather than pigmented algae!

Fig. 2: (a) Albedo for clean snow, bare ice and ice with an algal bloom measured on the Greenland Ice Sheet in July 2017. (b) Microscope image of melted surface ice from the Greenland ice sheet. The red oval shaped particles are ice algae and the angular, clear particles are mineral dust fragments. [Credit: A: J. Cook, B: C. Williamson]

On ice, a different species of algae exists in a thin liquid water film on the upper surface of melting ice crystals. These algae are also photosynthetic but are not bright green or red, but rather grey, brown or purple. They produce a purple pigment that acts as a UV shield that protects their delicate intracellular machinery from excessive light energy. The side effect of this is that the algae become very dark and have an albedo-lowering effect on the ice surface (see our Image of the Week). Ice with algae has a lower albedo than clean ice (Fig 2a) but, up to now, the magnitude of the biological darkening effect has not been quantified because of difficulties isolating algal darkening from that of mineral dusts, soot and the changing optical properties of the ice itself. This also limits our capability to map these algae using remote sensing. Samples of dark coloured ice examined under the microscope clearly show the presence of an algal community darkening the ice (Fig 2b).

In addition to surface-dwelling ice algae, microbial life exists in small pits known as cryoconite holes (see also this previous post). At the bottom of these holes exists a thin layer of granules comprising living microbial cells, dead cells, biogenic molecules, mineral fragments and soot. The organic matter in these granules is very dark, so they warm up when illuminated by the sun and melt into the ice. The relationship between cryoconite and ice surface albedo is complex because, although the cryoconite is dark, the hole geometry hides the granules beneath the ice surface.

Implications for the future of glaciers and ice sheets

The challenge facing scientists now is to quantify the bioalbedo effect by determining the optical properties of individual algal cells and remotely assessing their spatial coverage at the scale of entire glaciers and ice sheets. This will require new methods to be developed for detecting living cells from the air or space. Then, we must understand the factors controlling their growth, so we can predict biological darkening of ice in future climate scenarios. It is possible that algal coverage will increase as glaciers and ice sheets waste away because algae bloom where there is liquid melt water. Because of the darkening effect, an increasingly widespread algal ecosystem in a warming climate will accelerate the demise of its own habitat by enhancing glacier and ice sheet retreat.

Further reading

Edited by Scott Watson and Clara Burgard


Joseph Cook is a Postdoctoral Research Associate on NERC’s Black and Bloom project based at the University of Sheffield, UK where his remit is the measurement and modelling of surface albedo on the Greenland Ice Sheet. His background is in biotic-abiotic interactions on ice. He tweets as @tothepoles and blogs at http://tothepoles.wordpress.com. Contact Email: joe.cook@sheffield.ac.uk

Image of the week – Learning from our past!

Image of the week – Learning from our past!

Understanding the climate evolution of our planet is not an easy task, but it is essential to understand the past if we are to predict the future! Historic climate cycles provide us with a glimpse into a period of time when the Earth was warmer than it was today. Our image of the week looks at these warmer periods of time to see what they can tell us about the future! For example, during the Pliocene, the global mean sea level was greater than 6 m higher than it is today… so what can these historic records tell us about the future of the ice sheets and their contribution to sea-level rise?


We will work forward in time from 3 million years ago to present-day and examine the evidence we have about the past climate of Earth. In this time period there have been cycles of warm and cool climate (glacials and interglacials – see our previous post). Here we will examine those interglacial periods where the climate was warmer than the preindustrial period (before 1750).

The Pliocene ~ 3 million years ago

Approximately 3 million years ago during the mid-Pliocene period, the earth experienced climate cycles every 41,000 years, and the atmospheric CO2 ranged from 350 to 450 ppm compared to around 400 ppm today and 250 ppm preindustrial. During the Pliocene period, peak global mean temperatures were on average 1.9ºC to 3.6ºC warmer than preindustrial temperatures. Ice sheet modelers have used these changes in climatic conditions to estimate the retreat of the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets, which predicted the global mean sea level to rise ~6 and ~7 m, respectively (see our Image of the Week). Others have used geochemical methods to reconstruct historic sea level, which suggest that the global mean sea-level rise was 21 ± 10 m! While these studies provide great reason to be alarmed, they are unfortunately plagued with uncertainty that makes it challenging to provide any robust estimates of future sea-level rise based on the Pliocene period. Fortunately, more data is available from time periods closer to the present.

Marine Isotope Stage 11 (MIS 11) ~ 400 thousand years ago

Approximately 400,000 years ago, the earth experienced an unusually long period of warming, where the global mean temperature was estimated to be 1-2ºC warmer than preindustrial levels (see our Image of the Week). This period is known as MIS 11. Historic records such as pollen records, biomolecules, and ice-rafted debris suggest that the Greenland ice sheet severely retreated to the extent that forests developed on Southern Greenland! Ice sheet modelers estimate that this retreat in Greenland could have contributed 4.5 – 6 m to the global mean sea level rise. Paleoshoreline reconstruction at sites across the globe suggests that that the global mean sea level rise was ~6 – 13 m, which supports the large retreat experienced by the Greenland ice sheet and suggests that the Antarctic ice sheet likely experienced significant retreat as well if those higher estimates of sea level rise (~13 m) occurred.

Marine Isotope Stage 5 (MIS 5e) ~ 125 thousand years ago

Approximately 125,000 years ago, the earth experienced a period of warming approximately 1ºC warmer than preindustrial levels, known as MIS 5e. This warmer period has significantly more data available compared to the other time periods. It is often the case that more recent times have more abundant data and in this caseshorelines that developed during MIS 5e provide an excellent record of global mean sea level being an estimated 6 – 9 m higher than present.

Modeling studies suggest that at this time 0.6 – 3.5 m of sea level rise can be attributed to the retreat of the Greenland ice sheet and ~1 m can be attributed to thermal expansion and the melt of mountain glaciers (see Figure 2). Therefore, despite a lack of mass loss records of the Antarctic ice sheet at this time , it is likely that it underwent considerable retreat to enable contributing to the additional sea level rise.

Figure 2: Compilation of MIS 5e reconstructions for peak GMSL, the Greenland ice sheet contribution, and bets estimate of the total sea level budget [Credit: Dutton et al. (2015)].

What does this all mean for our future…

The further back in time, the larger the sources of uncertainty. Hence, there is fairly limited data regarding the Pliocene that may be used to help predict future conditions. Additionally, it’s important to remember that the climatic cycles in the Earth’s history resulted largely from changes in the Earth’s orbit. This is why the CO2 level associated with MIS 5e and 11 are similar to preindustrial levels, and yet these periods experienced significant increases in global mean temperature accompanied by rises in the global mean sea-level.

what we do know from the past is that both ice sheets experienced significant mass loss during these warm periods that directly impacted sea-level rise.

Today, the CO2 concentrations are around 407 ppm and the peak global mean temperature is approximately 1ºC warmer than preindustrial times (see the Image of the Week). For reference, the Paris Climate Accord is trying to bring our world leaders together to keep the peak global mean temperatures lower than 2ºC above pre-industrial levels. While the cause of the warming periods might be different, what we do know from the past is that both ice sheets experienced significant mass loss during these warm periods that directly impacted sea-level rise. Therefore, it’s very important to monitor and improve our future projections of mass loss from these ice sheets in order to better understand how sea-level rise will affect us.

Further Reading

  • Read the paper this article is based on here

Edited by Emma Smith 

Image of the week – Getting glaciers noticed!

Image of the week – Getting glaciers noticed!

Public engagement and outreach in science is a big deal right now. In cryospheric science the need to inform the public about our research is vital to enable more people to understand how climate change is affecting water resources and sea level rise globally. There is also no better way to enthuse people about science than to involve them in it. However, bringing the cryosphere to the public is a little more difficult when compared to other fields of science. Whilst volcanologists can cause mini explosions, seismologists can simulate earthquakes (such as Explosive Earth at last year’s Royal Society science fair) and realistic rivers can be simulated using interactive stream tables, combining ice and glacier dynamics in a public engagement setting can a little more challenging!


Despite the challenges involved in bringing the cryosphere to the public, a huge variety of great outreach projects concerned with glaciers exist, which deal with different aspects of the cryosphere; from using glacier goo to display how glaciers flow, recreating hydrology of a glacier with ice blocks, dressing up school children in fieldwork kit, or passing wires through ice to show regelation at work. But what should you keep in mind when planning your next cryospheric themed outreach activity?

Figure 2: The Vanishing Glacier of Everest stand at the Manchester Science festival [Credit: Owen King].

Keep it simple. By nature, academics are good at complexity. However, the most effective project I have been involved in was very simple – one where an ice block simply sat and melted (see our Image of the week). The team involved with this project came up with a vast array of complex ideas when planning the stand, but settled on the simple, effective idea of an ice block – which has been a great hit. The stand has now been to numerous science festivals, and people are constantly surprised by the ice being real! Once past the initial shock we have a great base from which to start conversations on the basics of how ice melts to the impact of climate change on glaciers around the world.

Keep it broad. Academics are also very good at forgetting just how specific their area of research is. You may want to link your outreach work to a particular project, but if you try to attempt something very specific you will spend a great deal of time talking to public about the basics before you get to the detail. To ensure everyone can get something out of your outreach work the best way is to provide a platform on which the basics can be taught but, if a conversation takes you there, you have the resources to explain your research in greater detail. At ‘Vanishing Glaciers of Everest’ we have the ice block for introductory discussions, but if someone gets really interested in the details we have figures and photos on the stand behind that can be used to introduce more complex areas of our research (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Glacier goo at science and engineering week, Aberystwyth University [Credit: Morgan Gibson]

Make it interactive. Generally, people don’t want to be talked at. Instead, most people want to discuss what they know with you, so make it easy for them to do so. Give people something to do (e.g. glacier goo – Fig. 3) as soon as they reach the stand that they can explore on their own. You can then join them and ask exploratory questions, which starts a discussion rather than presenting to them. You are then likely to engage the person you are talking to much more effectively, and may well find out something yourself!

Consider all ages. Outreach work is often focused on children. However, adults are also a key demographic on which to focus. Engaging teachers and parents is vital to really bring home the importance of science to children in school and at home; I have found that almost all children have an interest in what you are saying, but without enthusiasm and interest from the supervising adult your hard work at engaging the children will not be encouraged once they leave. Consider how you will show how your aspect of science is fun, but also relevant to peoples’ everyday lives – that way you can appeal to both demographics.

Be innovative. Hanging an ice block from a wire to show regelation is cool, as is glacier goo. However, increasingly I am finding people have seen these experiments before, and are finding it all a little boring as a result. By repeating the same experiments again and again we are in danger of suggesting our research is static, which is obviously not the case! So be inventive when you are coming up with ideas and don’t forget all the new technology you could include!

Figure 4: “Icy bear” – a Twitter-based public engagement ‘project’ that documents research on microbes on ice, and fieldwork, across the world [Credit: Arwyn Edwards]

Be prepared for anything. I’ve had people talk to me, at length, about how the best way for us adapt to sea level rise is for all of us live in high rise blocks on hill tops. I’ve also spent a great deal of time explaining how we know anthropogenic climate change is real. You will get some strange questions and bold statements, but they are part of the experience. Keep an open mind and be positive; you meet amazing, interesting people at these events, and I have had conversations that have led to new research ideas, or to me rewriting paragraphs of a paper due to discussions at such events.

Be reflective. Spend some time considering the effectiveness of your outreach once you have finished (and recovered) from an event. What worked well and what didn’t? Do aspects of your stand or event need adapting for different audiences? Can you expand what you are doing to enable more flexibility on the overall message for your work? Being reflective will only lead to more effective public engagement, more interesting discussions, and you feeling satisfied that you have enthused and engaged public on your research, so it is worth doing!

 

 

Public engagement, done right, is incredibly rewarding. You not only spread your enthusiasm for research and get to discuss your work with a huge range of people, but it also enables you to show people that like science is relevant to everyone.

If you want to see some public outreach in action for yourself, the upcoming International APECS Polar Week (September 18-24, 2017) is a great chance to get involved in some outreach activities. For example, the #PolarWorld Frostbytes competition, to design a short audio or video recording used as a tool to help researchers easily share their latest findings with a broad audience!

Edited by Emma Smith


Morgan Gibson is a PhD student at Aberystwyth University, UK, and is researching the role of supraglacial debris in ablation of Himalaya-Karakoram debris-covered glaciers. Morgan’s work focuses on: the extent to which supraglacial debris properties vary spatially; how glacier dynamics control supraglacial debris distribution; and the importance of spatial and temporal variations in debris properties on ablation of Himalaya-Karakoram debris-covered glaciers. Morgan tweets at @morgan_gibson, contact email address: mog2@aber.ac.uk.

Image of the Week – See sea ice from 1901!

Image of the Week – See sea ice from 1901!

The EGU Cryosphere blog has reported on several studies of Antarctic sea ice (for example, here and here) made from high-tech satellites, but these records only extend back to the 1970s, when the satellite records began. Is it possible to work out what sea ice conditions were like before this time? The short answer is YES…or this would be a very boring blog post! Read on to find out how heroic explorers of the past are helping to inform the future.


During the Heroic Age of Antarctic Exploration (1897–1917), expeditions to the “South” by explorers such as Scott and Shackleton involved a great deal of time aboard ship. Our image of the week shows one such ship – the ship of the German Erich von Drygalsk – captured from a hot air balloon in 1901.

These ships spent many months navigating paths through sea ice and keeping detailed logs of their observations along the way. Climate scientists at the University of Reading, UK have used these logs to reconstruct sea-ice extent in Antarctica at this time – providing key information to extend satellite observations of sea ice around the continent.

Why do we want to know about sea-ice extent 100 years ago?

In the last three decades, satellite records of Antarctic sea-ice extent have shown an increase, in contrast to a rapid decrease in Arctic sea-ice extent over the same period (see our previous post). It is not clear if this, somewhat confusing, trend is unusual or has been seen before and without a longer record, it is not possible to say. This limits how well the sensitivity of sea ice to climate change can be understood and how well climate models that predict future ice extent can be validated.

To help understand this increase in Antarctic sea-ice extent; records of ice composition and nature from ships log books recorded between 1897–1917 have been collated and compared to present-day ice conditions (1989–2014).

What does the study show?

The comparison between sea ice extent in the Heroic Age and today shows that the area of sea ice around Antarctica has only changed in size by a very small amount in the last ~100 years. Except in the Weddell sea, where ice extent was 1.71o (~80 km) further North in the Heroic Age, conditions comparable to present-day were seen around most of Antarctica. This suggests that Antarctic sea-ice extent is much less sensitive to the effects of climate change than that Arctic sea ice. One of the authors of the study, Jonny Day, summarises these findings in the video below:

References and Further Reading

Planet Press

planet_pressThis is modified version of a “planet press” article written by Bárbara Ferreira and originally published on 26th November 2016 on the EGU website .

It is also available in Dutch, Hungarian, Serbian, French, Spanish, Italian and Portuguese! All translated by volunteers – why not consider volunteering to translate an article and learn something interesting along the way?

 

Edited by Sophie Berger

Image of the week – Micro-organisms on Ice!

Image of the week – Micro-organisms on Ice!

The cold icy surface of a glacier doesn’t seem like an environment where life should exist, but if you look closely you may be surprised! Glaciers are not only locations studied by glaciologists and physical scientists, but are also of great interest to microbiologists and ecologists. In fact, understanding the interaction between ice and microbiology is essential to fully understand the glacier system!


Why study micro-organisms on glaciers?

Micro-plants, micro-animals and bacteria live and reproduce in cryoconite ecosystems on the surface of glaciers. Cryoconite is a dark coloured material (Fig. 2) found at the bottom of cylindrical water-filled melt holes (cryoconite holes) on a glacier surface; it consists of dust and mineral powders transported by the wind, and micro-organisms. Cryoconite holes are formed as the dark coloured material causes localised melting, due to reduced albedo (ability of a surface to reflect solar energy).

Figure 2: Example of a Cryoconite hole filled with dark cryoconite material (markers are 10×10 cm) [Credit: Tommaso Santagata – La Venta Esplorazioni Geografiche]

Because organisms in cryoconite thrive in extreme conditions, they are very unique and interesting to study. Information about their genetic makeup and chemical structure can help to inform, for example, medical and pharmaceutical sciences. Currently, however, information on their community structure is still limited.

Cryoconite ecosystems are very isolated and must work together to survive and thrive. Some micro-organisms (e.g. micro-algae) can photosynthesise and are able to live autonomously inside cryoconite holes using atmospheric carbon dioxide, sunlight, water and chlorophyll. By this same mechanism, they can find all the molecules essential for their vital and structural needs and consequently they generate most of the molecules necessary for all other living things. For example, the waste product of photosynthesis, oxygen, is essential for the survival of all organisms living in aerobiosis in these communities. Due to their key role in the ecosystem, the micro-algae are known as “primary producers”.

As around 70% of the earth is covered in water, which is colonised by micro-algae, studying the way they survive in extreme conditions and how they contribute to the ecosystem is of global importance – especially at this time of climate change.

The diversity of highly active bacterial communities in cryoconite holes makes them the most biologically active habitats within glacial ecosystems.

Data collections – Six days on THE glacier

The Perito Moreno glacier (Fig. 3) is known as one of the most important tourist attraction in Argentinian Patagonia (see our previous IOW post). Each day, hundreds of people observe the impressive front of this glacier and wait to see ice detachments and hear the loud sound of it’s impacts in the water of Lake Argentino. The glacier takes it’s name from the explorer Francisco Moreno, who studied the Patagonian region in the 19th century. The glacier is more than 30 km in length and an area of about 250 km2, Perito Moreno is one of the main outlet glaciers of Hielo Patagonico Sur (southern Patagonia icefield).

Figure 3: Aerial view of the Perito Moreno
[Credit : Tommaso Santagata – La Venta Esplorazioni Geografiche]

In April 2017, after several missions to the Greenland Ice Sheet to study extremophilic micro-organisms (organism that thrive in extreme environments) of ice, a team of Italian and French scientists organised a scientific expedition to study the microbiology of Perito Moreno. The expedition was organised by La Venta and Spélé’Ice and included researchers from several French and Italian Universities (see below for full list)

Perito Moreno is very well known, especially to the La Venta team, who have been organising scientific expeditions in Patagonia since 1991. The microbiological research objectives of this mission were to study the micro-organisms that live on the surface of Perito Moreno and compare them to results obtained in the other polar, sub-polar and alpine regions. The multi-disciplinary research team were able to set up a complex field laboratory, which included a microscope and an innovative small tool size capable of DNA sequencing. This meant that samples could be analysed immediately after their extraction from the ice (Fig. 1).

Getting all the equipment and personnel to achieve this expedition onto the ice was not an easy task. The team and their equipment were transported by boat to a site near the front of the glacier. Equipment then needed to be transported to the Buscaini Refugee, a shelter used as a base-camp by the team (Fig. 4). This took two trips, on foot, of about 7 hours (12 km of trail along the lateral moraine and the ice of the glacier with very heavy backpacks) – not an easy start! Luckily this hardship was somewhat mitigated by the absence of extreme cold, in fact, abnormally hot weather tallowed the team to move and work in t-shirts – not bad!

Figure 4: Walking into the field site along the ice of Perito Moreno – part of the 12km of trail to the Buscaini Refugee shelter
[Credit: Alessio Romeo – La Venta Esplorazioni Geografiche]

Thanks to these favourable weather conditions, all the goals were achieved in the short amount of time the team were allowed to camp on the glacier (special permission is needed from the national park to do this). During the five days of activity, many samples were taken and sequenced directly at the camp by the researches. Other important goals, such as morphological comparisons and measurements of the velocity of the glacier through the use of GPS, laser scanning and unmanned aerial vehicles were achieved by another team of researchers (stay tuned for another blog post about this!).

Universities and research institutes involved: University Bicocca of Milan – Italy, University of Milano – Italy, Sciences of the Earth A.Desio – Italy, Natural History Museum of Paris – France, University Diderot of Paris – France, University of Florence – Sciences of the Earth – Italy, University of Bologna – Italy.

Further Reading

Edited by Emma Smith


Tommaso Santagata is a survey technician and geology student at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. As speleologist and member of the Italian association La Venta Esplorazioni Geografiche, he carries out research projects on glaciers using UAV’s, terrestrial laser scanning and 3D photogrammetry techniques to study the ice caves of Patagonia, the in-cave glacier of the Cenote Abyss (Dolomiti Mountains, Italy), the moulins of Gorner Glacier (Switzerland) and other underground environments as the lava tunnels of Mount Etna. He tweets as @tommysgeo