CR
Cryospheric Sciences

Cryospheric Sciences

Image of the Week – Greenland’s fjords: critical zones for mixing

Image of the Week – Greenland’s fjords: critical zones for mixing

One of the most challenging research questions to address in the Arctic is how freshwater discharge from Greenland’s largest glaciers affects the biogeochemistry of the ocean. Just getting close to the calving fronts of these large marine-terminating glaciers is difficult. Fjords, hundreds of kilometers long and full of icebergs which shift with the wind and roll as they melt, make the commute a little difficult. Navigating these fjords to within a few kilometers of Greenland’s largest glaciers requires a combination of luck, skillful handling of small boats and a ‘fortune favors the brave’ attitude to sampling which would probably upset even the most relaxed of University Health and Safety Officers. The limited field data we have from Greenland’s fjords must therefore be combined with other data sources in order to understand what happens between glaciers and the ocean.


The Challenge

The amount of freshwater discharged from the Greenland ice sheet into the ocean increases in response to climate change. This may affect both the fisheries which support the island’s economy and the carbon sink associated with fjord systems – the largest per unit surface area in the ocean. As a consequence, we need to assess how exactly this cold freshwater will affect the ocean. To do so requires collaboration of scientists with different backgrounds:

  • glaciologists, to understand the different components of freshwater released (ice melt, surface runoff, subglacial discharge),

  • physicists, to understand the fate of freshwater within a dynamic water column,

  • chemists, to understand how the availability of resources shifts in response to increasing freshwater

  • biologists, to understand the net effects of multiple physio-chemical changes to the environment on living organisms.

In the context of climate change it is also always worth remembering that the increase in Greenland ice sheet discharge occurs alongside other changes in the Arctic, such as the disappearance of sea ice and warming of the atmosphere and ocean. Thus, we really must unleash 4-dimensional thinking in order to understand the processes that are currently at work in the whole Arctic.

Recent work around Greenland has shown that one particularly important factor in determining how a glacier affects downstream marine ecosystems is whether it terminates on land or in the ocean. When a glacier sits in the ocean and releases meltwater at depth, this cold freshwater rapidly mixes with deep nutrient-rich seawater. This buoyant mix, known as an upwelling plume, rises upwards in the water column. These buoyant plumes act as a ‘nutrient pump’ bringing macronutrients from deep seawater to the surface and thus driving quite pronounced summertime phytoplankton blooms. Around Greenland, these blooms are quite remarkable. Summertime productivity in the open Atlantic is generally quite limited, while the main time of year when phytoplankton bloom is spring. In several of Greenland’s fjords, however, phytoplankton bloom over the meltwater season (around May-September). Understanding how these upwelling-driven blooms operate, and more importantly how they will change in the future, is a formidable challenge. There is an almost complete lack of either physical or biogeochemical data within a few kilometers of most large marine-terminating glaciers and thus our ability to quantify the relationship between discharge and downstream productivity is limited.

Contrasting effects of meltwater around Greenland depending on where the glacier terminates with respect to sea-level. [Credit: Fig 3 from Hopwood et al., (2018)].

Modelling what we cannot measure

Fortunately however, the field of subglacial discharge modelling is relatively well advanced. Since the 1950s, plume models have been used to describe reasonably well the subglacial discharge downstream of glaciers. Whilst all of Greenland’s glacier fjords are unique, we can at least model the processes that underpin the ‘nutrient pump’ leading to such unusual summertime productivity around Greenland.

One thing is particularly clear from the use of these models. The depth at which a glacier sits in the water column is a major factor for the magnitude of the upwelling effect. If a glacier retreats inland, this is generally bad news for downstream marine productivity. As marine-terminating glaciers retreat, the nutrient pump rapidly collapses if the glacier moves into shallower water – irrespective of what happens to the volume of discharged meltwater. For a majority of Greenland’s glaciers for which the topography under the glacier has been characterised, this will be indeed the case under climate change: as the glaciers retreat inland, their grounding lines will get shallower and shallower. The ‘nutrient pump’ associated with each one will therefore also diminish.

Outlook

There are still many things we don’t know about environmental change around Greenland, as our almost complete lack of data outside the meltwater season and very close to marine-terminating glacier termini still hinders our understanding of some critical processes. Only by adopting more inter-disciplinary methods of working and deploying new technology will these data-deficiencies be addressed.

Further reading

 

Edited by Sophie Berger and Clara Burgard


Mark Hopwood is a postdoc at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany. He investigates how environmental changes, such as increasing freshwater discharge in the Arctic or declining oxygen in the tropics, affect the availability of nutrients to biota in the marine environment. By using a combination of fieldwork and targeted process studies the main goal is to identify and quantify biogeochemical feedbacks that act to amplify or dampen the response of marine biota to perturbations. He tweets as @Markinthelab. Contact Email: m.hopwood@geomar.de

Image of the Week – Oh Sheet!

Image of the Week – Oh Sheet!

The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are major players in future sea level rise. Still, there is a lot about these ice sheets we do not understand. Under the umbrella of the World Climate Research Programme, the international scientific community is coming together to improve ice sheet modelling efforts to better grasp the implications of climate change for ice sheet evolution, and consequently, sea level rise…


What are ice sheets?

An ice sheet is a massive chunk of glacier ice that sits on land – covering an area greater than 50,000 square kilometres (or 1.6 times the size of Belgium) by the official definition. Currently, the only two ice sheets on Earth are in Antarctica and Greenland. Ice in ice sheets flows from inland toward the coast under gravity. Due to the geothermal heat flux, ice sheets are usually warmer at the base than on the surface. When basal melting occurs, the melted water lubricates the ice sheet and accelerates the ice flow, forming fast-flowing ice streams. When ice flows down a coastline into the ocean, it may float due to buoyancy. The floating slab of ice is called an ice shelf (see these previous posts for more on ice shelves). The boundary that separates the grounded ice and floating ice is called the grounding line.

 

Why do we care about ice sheets?

The most uncertain potential source of future sea level rise is the contribution from ice sheets. According to observations, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have contributed approximately 7.5 and 4 mm of sea level rise respectively over the 1992-2011 period, and the contribution is accelerating. Knowing how the ice sheets will behave under future emission scenarios is crucial for risk assessment and policy-making (see this previous post for more on Antarctic ice sheets).

In addition to the direct impact on sea level rise, ice sheets interact with other components of the climate system. For example, ice discharge affects ocean circulation and marine biogeochemistry; changes in orography influence the atmosphere condition and circulation. In turn, the ice sheets gain mass primarily from snow fall, and lose mass through surface melting, surface sublimation, basal melting and ice discharge to the ocean, which are influenced by atmospheric and oceanographic processes. In Antarctica, the mass loss due to basal melting and iceberg calving is larger than snowfall accumulation. The Greenland Ice Sheet is also losing mass through iceberg calving and surface water runoff.

 

What’s CMIP?

Global coupled climate models are developed by different groups of scientists around the world to improve our understanding of the climate system. These models are highly complex, representing interactions between the ocean, atmosphere, land surface and cryosphere on global grids. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is a collaborative framework which provides a standard experimental protocol for the different models. The protocol includes a range of greenhouse gas emissions scenarios for future climate projections. Model output is made publicly available and forms the basis for assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The latest phase (CMIP6) is underway now.

 

What’s ISMIP6?

Ice sheets were considered as passive elements of the climate system previously and were not explicitly included in the CMIP process. However, observations of the rapid mass loss associated with dynamic change in ice sheets highlight the need to couple ice sheets to climate models. New developments in ice sheet modelling allow previously-omitted key processes which affect ice sheet dynamics on decadal timescales, such as grounding-line migration and basal lubrication, to be simulated with higher confidence.

ISMIP6 is an international effort designed to ensure that projections from ice sheet models are compatible with the CMIP6 process, bringing together scientists from over twenty institutions (Fig. 2). It aims to improve sea level projections, exploring sea level contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in a changing climate and investigating interactions between ice sheets and the climate system.

 

ISMIP6 Experiments

As shown in Figure 1, the objectives of ISMIP6 rely on three distinct modeling efforts:

  1. CMIP atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCM) without an ice sheet component
  2. standalone dynamic ice sheet models (ISMs) that are driven by forcing provided by CMIP
  3. fully coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice sheet models (AOGCM-ISMs).

 

In the first phase, ISMIP6 will compare output from different ice sheet models run in ‘standalone’ or ‘offline coupled’ mode. This means that they receive forcings from the climate model components like the ocean and atmosphere without feeding back. These experiments will be used to explore the uncertainty associated with ice sheets physics, dynamics and numerical implementation. In particular, ISMIP6 is currently focused on gaining insight into the uncertainty in ice sheet evolution resulting from the choice of initialization methods (the initMIP efforts for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets) and understanding the response of the Antarctic ice sheet to a total loss of the ice shelves (ABUMIP).

The model output of the initMIP simulations for Greenland is now publicly available.

Fig. 2: Participants of ISMIP6 standalone ice sheet modeling.

 

ISMIP6 workshop

Regular meetings are organised to update and facilitate communication between the participants. The most recent workshop was hosted in the Netherlands during 11 – 13 September 2018. The topic of the workshop was “Developing process-based projections of the ice sheets’ contribution to future sea level.” Participants aimed to evaluate the output of the CMIP6 climate models and obtain forcing for standalone ice sheet model experiments. During the workshop, scientists made progress on establishing the experimental protocols for the ice sheet model simulations that will be discussed in the IPCC sixth assessment report.

Fig.3: Participants in the ISMIP6 workshop in Leiden, Netherlands [Credit: Heiko Goelzer]

Further reading

Edited by Lettie Roach and Clara Burgard


Sainan Sun does her postdoctoral research with Frank Pattyn at Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). She achieved her doctoral degree in 2014, majoring in ice sheet modeling at Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. In her PhD study, she applied the BISICLES ice sheet model to Pine island glacier, Aurora drainage basin and Lambert-Amery drainage basin to describe the dynamical response of the Antarctic ice sheet to perturbations in boundary conditions. For the project at ULB, she aims to investigate the ice shelf features based on data acquired in Roi Baudouin ice shelf, Antarctica, and to estimate the potential instability of the Antarctic ice sheet using the f.ETISh ice sheet model. Contact Email: sainsun@ulb.ac.be

Image of the Week – The 2018 Arctic summer sea ice season (a.k.a. how bad was it this year?)

Sea ice concentration anomaly for August 2018: blue means less ice than “normal”, i.e. 1981-2010 average. Credit: NSIDC.

With the equinox this Sunday, it is officially the end of summer in the Northern hemisphere and in particular the end of the melt season in the Arctic. These last years, it has typically been the time to write bad news about record low sea ice and the continuation of the dramatic decreasing trend (see this post on this blog). So, how bad has the 2018 melt season been for the Arctic?  


Yes, the 2018 summer Arctic sea ice was anomalously low

Before we give you the results for this summer, let us start with the definitions of the three most common sea ice statistics:

  • Sea ice concentration: how much of a given surface area (e.g. 1 km2) in the ocean is covered by sea ice. The concentration is 100% if there is nothing but sea ice, 50% if half of this area is covered by ice, and 0% if there is nothing but open water. Read more about how satellites measure sea ice concentration on this blog here.
  • Sea ice extent: typically defined as the ocean area with at least 15% sea ice concentration.
  • Sea ice volume: the whole volume of sea ice, i.e. total area times thickness of sea ice. This is probably the most difficult of the three statistics to measure since satellite measurements of sea ice thickness are only starting to be trustworthy.

So, how did summer 2018 perform regarding these three statistics?
As shown on today’s Image of the Week, the sea ice concentration has been anomalously low in most parts of the Arctic, with many areas in dark blue showing they had more than 50% less sea ice than normal (1981-2010 average).

The resulting extent was anomalously low as well (see figure below), but not record-breaking low. The volume however was the fourth lowest recorded or 50% lower than normal, with 5000 km3 of sea ice missing. In a more meaningful unit, that is one trillion elephants of ice, or 64 000 elephants per km2 of the Arctic Ocean.

But as we discussed in a previous post, talking about the Arctic as a whole is not enough to understand what happened this summer. So let us have a closer look at the area north and east of Greenland.

Summer 2018 Arctic sea ice extent up till 19th September (blue) compared to the “normal” extent (grey) and the all-time record of 2012 (green dashed). Credit: NSIDC.

North of Greenland: open water instead of multiyear ice

Until recently, most of the Arctic Ocean was covered by multiyear / perennial ice. That is, most sea ice would not melt in summer and would stay until the next winter. But with climate change and the warming of the Arctic, the multiyear ice cover has shrunk and became limited to the area north of Greenland.

The situation has been even more dramatic this summer. For the entire month of August 2018, there was open water north of Greenland where there should have been thick multiyear ice (see picture below). As nicely explained here, that area had already unexpectedly melted in February this year when the Arctic was struck with record high air temperatures; when the sea ice closed again, it was thinner and more brittle than it should have been, and did not withstand strong winds in August. Therefore, this unusual winter melting could have contributed to the formation of open water north of Greenland.

It is really bad news, and it does feel like yet another tragic milestone: even the last areas of multiyear ice are melting away. Most worryingly, we do not know what the consequences of this disappearance will be on the ecosystem and the entire climate. Or rather, we know that everything from local sea ice algae to European weather patterns will be affected, but more research is needed over the coming years before we can assess the full impact over our complex fully coupled climate system.

Optical satellite image of the northern half of Greenland, 19 August 2018. Dark colour is open water, and should not have been here. Credit: NASA.

Reference/Further reading

For near real time analysis of the sea ice conditions: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

For checking sea ice data from home: https://seaice.uni-bremen.de/databrowser/

For simple visualisations of sea ice statistics: http://sites.uci.edu/zlabe/arctic-sea-ice-volumethickness/

 

Edited by David Docquier

Image of the Week – Climbing Everest and highlighting science in the mountains

Image of the Week – Climbing Everest and highlighting science in the mountains

Dr Melanie Windridge, a physicist and mountaineer, successfully summited Mount Everest earlier this year and has been working on an outreach programme to encourage young people’s interest in science and technology. Read about her summit climb, extreme temperatures, and the science supporting high-altitude mountaineering in our Image of the Week.


It’s bigger than it looks! Experiencing the majesty of Everest

In April/May this year I climbed Mount Everest. To the top. It was two months of patient toil but in surroundings so majestic, impressive and inspiring. The Western Cwm (an amphitheatre-like valley shaped by glacial erosion) is vast, the summit ridge is steep and Khumbu Glacier was fascinating in itself. Our base camp was on the glacier and it changed daily in subtle ways – the ice melted, the rocks moved, the paths morphed. And the icefall was slightly different each time I passed through – the route changing through a collapsed area, a crevasse widening, or the rope buried by ice-block debris fallen from above. It’s a wonderful, interesting place and I am grateful to have experienced it. You can read more about the climb on my personal blog.

Fig.2: The view up the Western Cwm from Camp 1. Lhotse can be seen in the distance and the summit of Everest mid-left. [Credit: Melanie Windridge].

Everest, of course, is extreme. It is steep almost everywhere, so you barely get a let-up anywhere beyond the Western Cwm. The temperature differences are extreme too – it is extremely hot or extremely cold. I took a couple of temperature loggers with me to the summit (one in a base-layer pocket under my down suit and one in an outer pocket of my rucksack). You can see from the graph of summit night (the climb from Camp 4 to the summit of Everest) (Fig. 3) how the temperature varied by tens of degrees.  Since climbers dress for the coldest temperatures, this can be quite uncomfortable when the sun comes out.  The temperature on summit night got down to about -25°C, but during the day it rose to 10 degrees or more so that we were sweating into our down suits.

 

Fig.3: Graph showing the readings from two separate temperature loggers on summit night – one in a base-layer pocket under the down suit (Down suit temperature) and one in an outer pocket of the rucksack (Air temperature). The temperature rises quickly after sunrise, which was experienced on the summit [Credit: Melanie Windridge and Scott Watson].

Sharing the Science of the Summit

It was science that really got me interested in Everest, when I realised that the main reason the British had succeeded in 1953 but hadn’t in the 1920s and 30s was because of scientific understanding and the state of technology. But so often we don’t talk about the science that supports us in these great endeavours; instead we put it all down to the strength of the human spirit. I think we need to talk about both.

As part of my climb, I have been working on an outreach project to highlight how science and technology have improved safety and performance on Everest. I have made Science of Everest videos for the Institute of Physics YouTube channel and will be giving public talks. I wanted to show how science supports us and what has improved in recent decades to contribute to the falling death rate on Everest.

In the video series I look at changes in weather forecasting, communications, oxygen, medicine and clothing. We also consider risk and preparation – videos that went out before I left for Everest – because, as a scientist, I looked into past data to see how I could give myself the best chance of reaching the summit and returning safely.

 

 

Communication has improved not only because we have a greater variety than was available to the first ascentionists or the early commercial climbers (we have satellite phones, mobile/cell-phones and WiFi now), but also because everything is a lot smaller. Electronic components have greatly reduced in size so that radios used on the mountain now are small and handheld in comparison to the bulky sets of the 1950s (see video above).

 

 

Of course, the implication of the project is wider than just Everest. I am interested in the importance of science and exploration in general. For me, Everest is an icon of exploration – the way that human curiosity, ingenuity, determination and endurance come together to drive us forward. Reaching into the unknown is good for us, on a societal level and on a personal level. I hope to give an appreciation of the value of science in our lives, give students an insight into interesting careers that use science, and show the value of doing things that scare us!

 

Further reading

Edited by Scott Watson and Clara Burgard


Dr Melanie Windridge is a physicist, speaker, writer… with a taste for adventure. She is Communications Consultant for fusion start-up Tokamak Energy, author of “Aurora: In Search of the Northern Lights” and is currently working on a book about Mount Everest.
Website: www.melaniewindridge.co.uk (see the Science & Exploration blog to read about the Everest climb)
Twitter @m_windridge, Facebook /DrMelanieWindridge, Instagram @m_windridge
Science of Everest videos on the Institute of Physics YouTube channel http://bit.ly/EverestVids

Image of the Week – The shape of (frozen sea) water

 

Figure 1: Annual evolution of the sea ice area with two different floe shape parameters of 0.44 (red) and 0.88 (blue). The model is spun-up between 2000 – 2006 and then evaluated for a further ten years between 2007 – 2016 and the mean values over this period displayed by the thick lines. Thin lines show the results for individual years. [Credit: Adam Bateson]

Polar sea ice exists as isolated units of ice that we describe as floes. These floes do not have a constant shape (see here for instance); they can vary from almost circular to being jagged and rectangular. However, sea ice models currently assume that all floes have the same shape. Much focus has been paid to the size of floes recently, but do we also need to reconsider how floe shape is treated in models?


Why might floe shape matter?

In recent years, sea ice models have started to examine more and more how individual floes influence the overall evolution of sea ice.

A particular focus has been the size of floes (see here and here) and the parameterisation of processes which influence floe size (see here for example). However less attention has been given to the shape of the floe. The shape of the floe is important for several reasons:

  • Lateral melt rate: the lateral melt rate describes how quickly a floe melts from its sides. Two floes with the same area but different shape can have a different perimeter; the lateral melt rate  is proportional to the floe perimeter.
  • Wave propagation: a straight floe edge will impact propagating waves differently to a curved or jagged floe edge. The distance waves travel under the sea ice and hence the extent of sea ice that waves can fragment will be dependent on these wave-floe edge interactions.
  • Floe mechanics: an elongated floe (i.e. much longer in one direction than another) will be more likely to break from incoming waves if its longer edge is aligned with the direction the waves are travelling.

How do models currently treat floe shape?

One approach used within sea ice models to define floe shape is the use is the use of a parameter, α. The smaller the floe shape parameter, the longer the floe perimeter (and hence, the higher the lateral melt rate). A standard value used for the parameter is 0.66 (Steele, 1992). Figure 2 shows how this floe shape parameter varies for some common shapes.

Figure 2: The floe shape parameters for some common shapes are given for comparison to the standard value of 0.66. [Credit: Adam Bateson]

The standard value of the floe shape parameter, 0.66, was obtained from taking the mean floe shape parameter measured over all floes greater than 1 km from a singular study area of 110 km x 95 km at one snapshot in time. Despite the limited data set used to estimate this shape parameter, it is being used for all sea ice throughout the year for all floe sizes. However, this would only be a concern to the accuracy of modelling if it turns out that sea ice evolution in models is sensitive to the floe shape parameter.

 

Model sensitivity to floe shape

To investigate the model sensitivity to the floe shape parameter two simulations have been run: one uses a floe shape parameter of 0.88 and the other uses 0.44, chosen to represent likely extremes. The two simulations are run from 2000 – 2016, with 2000 – 2006 used as a spin-up period. Figure 1 displays the mean total ice area throughout the year and results of individual years for each simulation. Figure 3 is an equivalent plot to show the annual evolution of total ice volume for each simulation.

The results show that the perturbation from reducing the floe shape parameter is smaller than the variation between years within the same simulation.  However, the model does show a permanent reduction in volume throughout the year and a 10 – 20 % reduction in the September sea ice minimum. The impact of the floe shape is hence small but significant, particularly for predicting the annual minimum sea ice extent and volume.

Figure 3: Annual evolution of the sea ice volume with two different floe shape parameters of 0.44 (red) and 0.88 (blue). The model is spun-up between 2000 – 2006 and then evaluated for a further ten years between 2007 – 2016 and the mean values over this period displayed by the thick lines. Thin lines show the results for individual years.

More recent studies on floe shape

In 2015, Gherardi and Lagomarsino analysed the floe shape behaviour from four separate samples of satellite imagery from both the Arctic and Antarctic. The study found different distributions of floe shapes in different locations, however there was no correlation between floe shape and size. This property would allow models to treat floe shape and size as independent properties. More recently, in 2018, Herman et al. analysed the results of laboratory experiments of ice breaking by waves. It was found that wave break-up influenced the shape of the floes, tending to produce straight edges and sharp angles.  These features are associated with a smaller floe parameter i.e. would produce an increased lateral melt rate.

What next?

More observations are needed to identify whether the use of a constant floe shape parameter is justified. The following questions are important:

  • Do further observations support the finding that floe size and shape are uncorrelated?
  • What range of values for the floe shape parameter can be observed in reality?
  • Do we see significant variations in the floe shape parameter between locations?
  • Do these variations occur over a large enough scale that they can be represented within existing model resolutions?

Further reading

Edited by Violaine Coulon and Sophie Berger


Adam Bateson is a PhD student at the University of Reading (United Kingdom), working with Danny Feltham. His project involves investigating the fragmentation and melting of the Arctic seasonal sea-ice cover, specifically improving the representation of relevant processes within sea-ice models. In particular he is looking at lateral melting and wave induced fragmentation of sea-ice as drivers of break up, as well as the role of the ocean mixed layer as either an amplifier or dampener to the impacts of particular processes. Contact: a.w.bateson@pgr.reading.ac.uk or @a_w_bateson on twitter.

Image of the Week – Stuck in the ice: could it have been predicted?

Image of the Week –  Stuck in the ice: could it have been predicted?

Expeditions in the Southern Ocean are invaluable opportunities to learn more about this fascinating but remote region of the world. However, sending vessels to navigate the hostile Antarctic waters is an expensive endeavor, not only financially but also from a human perspective. When vessels are forced to turn back due to hazardous conditions or, even worse, become stuck in the ice (as shown in our Image of the Week), a mission full of expectations can quickly turn into a nightmare. Hence there is an increasing demand for reliable information on the navigability of the Southern Ocean a few weeks to a few months in advance. This information could support the final decision whether to start the journey or not, and would allow minimizing the associated risks.


What’s the problem?

In late February 2018, the British vessel RRS James Clark Ross was heading to the Eastern Antarctic Peninsula to investigate the consequences of the calving of a massive iceberg from the Larsen C ice shelf. Unfortunately the vessel had to turn back before reaching its goal due to the unexpected presence of thick sea ice in the region. This story is not unusual. During Christmas 2013, a Russian ship named the Akademik Shokalskiy also got stuck in several meters of Antarctic sea ice. Ironically, one of the rescuing vessels itself (the Chinese Xuě Lóng) got trapped in the ice as well. To prevent such events from happening again, we need to be able to predict the upcoming sea-ice conditions. Can sea-ice conditions be forecast at seasonal time scales? If so, how?

 

Antarctic sea ice, the Year of Polar Prediction and SIPN South

To prevent accidents and unforeseen problems, one goal of the Year Of Polar Prediction is to enhance environmental forecasting capabilities from operational (hours to days) to tactical (weeks to months) time scales in high latitude regions. Several studies support the notion that Antarctic sea ice may be predictable a few months ahead, at least in certain regions (Holland et al. 2017, Chen and Yuan 2004, Holland et al. 2013, Marchi et al. 2018).

To investigate further the predictability of Antarctic sea ice, the Sea Ice Prediction Network South (SIPN South) was launched in 2017. It is a two-year international project endorsed by the YOPP. SIPN South pursues three strategic objectives:

  • Hosting seasonal outlooks of Antarctic sea ice to better understand the sources of sea-ice predictability and the origins of systematic forecast errors in different types of models.
  • Providing news and information on the current state of Antarctic sea ice, disseminating research to a wider audience and reporting ongoing field campaigns.
  • Coordinating realistic seasonal prediction exercises to investigate the potential use of this information for users and customers, primarily ships navigating in the region.

 

February 2018 seasonal sea-ice forecasts

As a first major milestone, SIPN South provided coordinated forecasts of sea ice for February 2018. February is the month with the smallest sea-ice area in the Antarctic, and therefore most of the shipping traffic in the region happens around that time. Participants were asked to provide an estimation of sea-ice coverage (area, concentration) for each day of February 2018, and were asked to issue their predictions by mid-December 2017. 13 research groups participated in this first forecasting experiment, following different approaches: several groups used fully coupled climate dynamical models, while others applied statistical regression methods to predict future ice conditions.

As we all know, the weather is unpredictable beyond a few days. However, previous research has suggested that the statistics of weather (its mean, its variability) can potentially be predicted from months to decades, due to the coupling of the atmosphere with “slower” components of the climate system like the ocean. To reflect this and to accurately estimate the statistics of weather, groups tend to provide not just one forecast, but several of them. These “ensembles” of forecasts provided by each group therefore represent all possible states of the atmosphere, ocean and ice that may prevail in February 2018 – given the known initial conditions of December.

The results of the coordinated experiment are shown in Figure 2. The February mean sea-ice area is shown for each group (colors), along with two actual observational references (black). Bear in mind that the forecast data were issued two months before the actual target date! Here, the forecasts are expressed as anomalies with respect to a reference climatology. All forecasts tend to overestimate the February sea ice area in the Ross Sea. A reason for this wrong estimation might be a very unusual cyclone, which passed over the Ross Sea around the 20th of January 2018 (i.e., between the time the forecasts were issued and the period for verification). This cyclone brought relatively warm air into the region. Furthermore it fractured the ice, opening more areas of open water and possibly increasing the effect of the ice-albedo feedback. Events like this one are not individually predictable several weeks in advance, but a well-designed forecasting system should at least account for this possibility. Despite running ensembles of forecasts, the sea-ice reduction in the Ross Sea was not captured by most forecasts. This may point towards a common and systematic deficiency in these prediction systems.

Figure 2: February 2018 mean regional sea-ice area anomaly (compared to 1979-2014 observed climatology) by longitude, for the 13 submissions, with observed estimates given in black. Solid lines show the ensemble mean for each contribution, with transparent shading indicating the ensemble range (min-max) [Credit: F. Massonnet].

Communicating climate information

Sea-ice area, as shown in Fig. 2, is a primary parameter used by scientists to quantify ice presence in a given region. It is also a useful number to diagnose model-data mismatch. However, sea-ice area is of little use for those who actually need climate information. For someone operating a vessel, the important information is how likely that vessel is to encounter sea ice in a given region for a given day in February. Information from Fig. 2, while certainly useful to scientists, is meaningless to those willing to extract practical information for navigation.

Alongside the work to understand fundamental drivers of sea-ice predictability in order to eventually improve the predictions, it is necessary to consider how potential users will interact with the forecasts. As explained above, climate forecasts are probabilistic in nature. Communicating probabilistic information to a non-trained audience is always a challenging task: for example, how would you interpret a forecast saying that there is a 50% chance of rain for tomorrow?

To reflect the irreducible uncertainty of climate forecasts (see previous section), sea-ice forecasts are generally expressed in terms of sea-ice probability, i.e. the probability that a given region of the Southern Ocean has sea-ice concentration larger than 15%. This probability is derived for each day and each grid cell from the ensemble forecasts contributed by each group (Fig. 3). If well calibrated, this type of information can be useful to those planning operations weeks in advance. For example, all but one model had forecast a high (>80%) probability of ice presence in the Larsen C area (eastern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula) where the RRS James Clark Ross got stuck five months ago. That is, there was a high risk, according to those forecasts, that ice would be present in that area in February. Of course, this does not mean that navigation would have been impossible (ice breakers can still operate in icy waters, provided the ice is thin), but these forecasts provided a first-order warning that there was a significant risk of encountering hazardous ice conditions there.

Figure 3: Probability of sea-ice presence for 15th February 2018, as forecasted by the five groups that submitted daily sea-ice concentration information. The sea-ice edge as observed by two products is shown in white. The probability of presence for a given day corresponds to the fraction of ensemble members that simulate sea-ice concentration larger than 15% in a given grid cell for that day. A dynamic animation of the figure showing all 28 days of February is available on the SIPN South website. [Credit: F. Massonnet]

Forecasting February 2019

The core phase of the Year of Polar Prediction entails “Special Observing Periods”, that is, intensive efforts to monitor the Arctic and Antarctic regions but also to enhance modeling activities (see this previous post). The (unique) Special Observing Period in the Southern Ocean will take place between mid-November 2018 and mid-February 2019. A new call for contributions will be launched by SIPN South to collect sea-ice forecasts for austral summer 2019, hoping that the first exercise in 2018 will raise the interest of even more research groups. A key question will be to assess whether the systems will be able to forecast better the sea-ice conditions in the challenging Ross Sea area, where most forecasts failed. Better insights will hopefully be gained in tracing the origin of systematic model error and lead to an improvement of Antarctic sea ice predictions within the next decade. As reliable climate information is crucially needed in this remote but important region of the world, future efforts to predict Antarctic sea ice will be very welcome!

 

Further reading

Edited by Adam Bateson and Clara Burgard

 


François Massonnet is a F.R.S.-FNRS Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Université catholique de Louvain and scientific collaborator at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (Spain). He is assessing climate models as tools to understand (retrospectively and prospectively) polar climate variability and beyond. He tweets as @FMassonnet. Contact Email: francois.massonnet@uclouvain.be

 

 

Image of the Week – The future of Antarctic ice shelves

Percent change in ice shelf melting, caused by the ocean, during the four future projections. The values are shown for all of Antarctica (written on the centre of the continent) as well as split up into eight sectors (colour-coded, written inside the circles). Figure 3 of Naughten et al., 2018 ). ©American Meteorological Society. Used with permission.

Climate change will increase ice shelf melting around Antarctica. That’s the not-very-surprising conclusion of a recent modelling study, resulting from a collaboration between Australian and German researchers. Here’s the less intuitive result: much of the projected melting is actually linked to a decrease in sea ice formation. Learn why in our Image of the Week…


Different types of Antarctic ice

Sea ice is just frozen seawater. But ice shelves (as well as ice sheets and icebergs) are originally formed of snow. Snow falls on the Antarctic continent, and over many years compacts into a system of interconnected glaciers that we call an ice sheet. These glaciers flow downhill towards the coast. If they hit the coast and keep going, floating on the ocean surface, the floating bits are called ice shelves. Sometimes the edges of ice shelves will break off and form icebergs, but they don’t really come into this story (have a look at this and this previous post if you want to read about icebergs nevertheless!).

Climate models don’t typically include ice sheets, or ice shelves, or icebergs. This is due to a combination of insufficient resolution and software engineering challenges, and is one reason why future projections of sea level rise are so uncertain. However, some standalone ocean models, i.e. ocean models without a coupled atmosphere, do include ice shelves. At least, they include the little pockets of ocean beneath the ice shelves – we call them ice shelf cavities – and can simulate the melting and refreezing that happens on the undersides of ice shelves.

Modelling future ice shelf melting

We took one of these ocean/ice-shelf models and forced it with the atmospheric output of regular climate models, which periodically make projections of climate change from now until the end of this century. As forcing, we used the atmospheric output of the Australian model ACCESS 1.0 in two experiments, and the mean of the atmospheric output from 19 other climate models taking part in the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5  (Multi-Model Mean or “MMM”) in another two experiments. Each set of experiments considered two different scenarios for future greenhouse gas emissions (“Representative Concentration Pathways” or RCPs), for a total of four simulations. Each simulation required 896 processors on the supercomputer in Canberra. By comparison, your laptop or desktop computer probably has about 4 processors. These are pretty sizable models!

In every simulation, and in every region of Antarctica, ice shelf melting increases over the 21st century. The total increase ranges from 41% to 129% depending on the emissions scenario and choice of climate model. The largest increases occur in the Amundsen Sea region, marked with red circles in our Image of the Week, which also happens to be the region exhibiting the most severe melting in recent observations. In the most extreme scenario, i.e. with the highest future greenhouse gas emissions and the more sensitive climate model, ice shelf melting in this region nearly quadruples.

Understanding the drivers of melting

So what processes are causing this melting? This is where the sea ice comes in. When sea ice forms, it spits out most of the salt from the seawater (brine rejection), leaving the remaining water saltier than before. Salty water is denser than fresh water, so it sinks. This drives a lot of vertical mixing, and the heat from warmer, deeper water is lost to the atmosphere. The ocean surrounding Antarctica is unusual in that the deep water is generally warmer than the surface water. We call this warm, deep water Circumpolar Deep Water, and it’s currently the biggest threat to the Antarctic Ice Sheet. (I say “warm” – it’s only about 1°C, so you wouldn’t want to go swimming in it, but it’s plenty warm enough to melt ice.)

In our simulations, warming winters cause a decrease in sea ice formation. This leads to less brine rejection, causing fresher surface waters, causing less vertical mixing, and the warmth of Circumpolar Deep Water is no longer lost to the atmosphere. As a result of reduced vertical mixing, ocean temperatures near the bottom of the Amundsen Sea increase and this better-preserved Circumpolar Deep Water
finds its way into ice shelf cavities, causing large increases in melting.

 

Slices through the Amundsen Sea – you’re looking at the ocean sideways, like a slice of birthday cake, so you can see the vertical structure. Temperature is shown on the top row (blue is cold, red is warm); salinity is shown on the bottom row (blue is fresh, red is salty). Conditions at the beginning of the simulation are shown in the left 2 panels, and conditions at the end of the simulation are shown in the right 2 panels. At the beginning of the simulation, notice how the warm, salty Circumpolar Deep Water rises onto the continental shelf from the north (right side of each panel), but it gets cooler and fresher as it travels south (towards the left) due to vertical mixing. At the end of the simulation, the surface water has freshened and the vertical mixing has weakened, so the warmth of the Circumpolar Deep Water is preserved. Figure 8 of Naughten et al., 2018, ©American Meteorological Society. Used with permission.

 

Going to the next level

This link between weakened sea ice formation and increased ice shelf melting has troubling implications for sea level rise. The next step is to simulate the sea level rise itself, which requires some model development. Ocean models like the one we used for this study have to assume that ice shelf geometry stays constant, so no matter how much ice shelf melting the model simulates, the ice shelves aren’t allowed to thin or collapse. Basically, this design assumes that any ocean-driven melting is exactly compensated by the flow of the upstream glacier such that ice shelf geometry remains constant.

Of course this is not a good assumption, because we’re observing ice shelves thinning all over the place, and a few have even collapsed. But removing this assumption would necessitate coupling with an ice sheet model, which presents major engineering challenges. We’re working on it – at least ten different research groups around the world – and over the next few years, fully coupled ice-sheet/ocean models should be ready to use for the most reliable sea level rise projections yet.

Further reading

Edited by Clara Burgard


Kaitlin Naughten is a postdoc at the British Antarctic Survey in Cambridge, UK. She is an ocean modeller focusing on interactions between Antarctic ice shelves, sea ice, and the Southern Ocean. Tweets as @kaitlinnaughten Website: climatesight.org

Image of the Week – Making waves: assessing supraglacial water storage for debris-covered glaciers

Fig. 1: Deriving the bathymetry and temperature of a large supraglacial pond on Khumbu Glacier, Everest region of Nepal. The sonar-equipped unmanned surface vessel nicknamed ‘BathyBot’ (left), and kayak retrieval of temperature loggers (right) [Credit: Scott Watson].

A creeping flux of ice descends Everest, creating the dynamic environment of Khumbu Glacier. Ice and snow tumble, debris slumps, ice cliffs melt, englacial cavities collapse, ponds form and drain, all responding to a variable energy balance. Indeed, Khumbu Glacier is a debris-covered glacier, meaning it features a layer of sediment, rocks and house-sized boulders that covers the ice beneath. Recent advances in understanding debris-covered glacier hydrology come from combining in situ surveys with remotely sensed satellite data.


Khumbu Glacier

The dramatic beauty of Nepal’s Everest region attracts a mix of trekkers, climbers, and scientists. Flowing down from the slopes of Mount Everest, the debris-covered Khumbu Glacier has drawn scientists from the mid-1900s, and offers temporary residence for research teams and a myriad of climbers. In some locations, Khumbu Glacier has thinned by up to 80 m in the last three decades, leading to moraines overlooking the glacier with impressive topographic relief and providing an instant visualisation of glacier mass loss for trekkers heading to Everest Base Camp.

Melt at the surface of this glacier is moderated by an undulating debris layer, which insulates the ice beneath,   and enhanced locally by dynamic surface features such as supraglacial ponds and ice cliffs thinly veiled by debris. These features contribute disproportionately to melt and lead to the development of hummocky, pitted surface topography. The resulting variable surface topography and melt rates complicate meltwater runoff and flow routing across the glacier. To better understand them, in situ surveying (Fig. 1) is increasingly combined with fine spatial-temporal resolution satellite imagery to reveal the hydrological evolution of debris-covered glaciers, which is closely linked to their mass loss.

Hydrology of Khumbu Glacier

As with debris-free glaciers, water may be routed through supraglacial, englacial, and subglacial pathways, which are conceptually distinct but physically link to one another.

At Khumbu Glacier, surface channels collect and rapidly convey meltwater generated in the upper ablation area (Fig. 2), just below the treacherous Khumbu Icefall, incising at a faster rate than the surface melt. In the middle of the debris-covered area, such streams disappear into the glacier’s interior through cut-and-closure and/or hydrofracture.

Fig.2: The upper ablation area of Khumbu is drained by supraglacial channels which enter the glacier’s interior through hydrofracture and cut-and-closure, while the lower portion is characterised by pitted surface depressions and an increasing density of ponds. Right panel looking east to west shows the hummocky topography and ponding on Khumbu Glacier. [Credit: Evan Miles (left), Ann Rowan (right)].

In areas of low surface gradient , and particularly throughout the hummocky lower reaches of the glacier, supraglacial ponds collect water in surface depressions. These features haveregulate the runoff of debris-covered glaciers by seasonally storing meltwater. The annual melt cycle thus leads to pond expansion and contraction, or their disappearance when the protecting debris layer thaws and relict meltwater conduits become avenues for drainage (Fig 3). The areal fluctuation of ponds can be quantified using  satellite images at different times, but cloud cover during the summer monsoon season limits useable imagery at a time when the ponds are most dynamic. Therefore, field-instrumented ponds provide valuable insights into their active melt season behaviour.

Fig. 3: A small 4.5 m deep pond that drained over the course of a year [Credit: Watson et al., 2017a].

Turbid ponds associated with debris influx from ice cliffs are often ephemeral but some can grow to hold vast quantities of water (Fig. 1). Stored water absorbs and transmits solar energy to melt adjacent ice, which generates additional meltwater and leads to pond expansion. The ponds also thermally undercut ice cliffs, leading to both subaqueous and subaerial  retreat (Fig. 4). Khumbu Glacier has been developing a growing network of ponds in recent years, which means meltwater is increasingly stored on the surface of the glacier before contributing to downstream river discharge. Ponds that coalesce into larger and more persistent lakes behind unstable deposits of sediment can in some cases pose a hazard  to downstream communities. Field and satellite-based techniques are therefore used simultaneously to monitor lake development.

 

Fig. 4. Supraglacial ponds often exist alongside ice cliffs. These ‘hot spots’ of melt can be observed with repeat point cloud differencing [Credit: Watson et al., 2017b]. An interactive view of the drained pond basin (right) is available here.

What lies beneath?

Ephemeral ponds drain into the ‘black box’ glacier interior, where relatively little is known about the internal structure and hydrology. Scientists have occasionally ventured into the subsurfac e realm through networks of englacial conduits that become exposed as the glacier thins (Fig. 5); such conduits often re-emerge at the glacier surface but may also lead to the bed. The conduits carry meltwater through the glacier but can become dormant if blocked by falling debris or creeping ice, or when the meltwater that sustains them finds a route of lesser resistance. Whilst satellite data can be used to infer the presence of conduits, field-based methods are required for hydrological budgeting and quantifying meltwater transit times. For example, dye tracing can detect the subsurface passage of meltwater where strategically placed fluorometers measure the receipt and dilution of the dye upon re-emergence. Such methods are crucial for developing an improved understanding of the links between, for example, flow in the supraglacial channels up-glacier and discharge at the outlet.

Fig. 5: An exposed conduit on Lirung Glacier (left) [Credit: Miles et al., 2017] and researchers inside a conduit on Ngozumpa Glacier (right) [Credit: Benn et al., 2017].

 

Outlook

Multiple teams working across the Himalaya are advancing our understanding of debris-covered glacier hydrology, which is essential to forecast their future and quantify their downstream impact. With the ready availability of increasingly high temporal resolution satellite imagery (e.g. Sentinel-2, Planet Labs), the link between field and spacebourne observations will become increasingly complementary. Developing these links is crucial to upscale observations from specific sites more broadly across the Himalaya.

Further reading

Edited by Violaine Coulon and Sophie Berger


Scott Watson is a Postdoc at the University of Arizona, USA. He studies glaciers in the Everest region and the surface interactions of supraglacial ponds and ice cliffs. He also investigates natural hazards and the implications of glacial lake outburst floods.
Tweets @CScottWatson. Website: www.rockyglaciers.co.uk

 

 

Evan Miles is a Research Fellow at the University of Leeds, UK, where he is a part of the EverDrill project’s hot-water drilling at Khumbu Glacier. His recent work has examined the seasonal hydrology and dynamics of debris-covered glaciers, with a focus on the melt associated with dynamic surface features such as supraglacial ice cliffs and ponds.
Tweets @Miles_of_Ice

EverDrill website: www.EverDrill.org

Image of the Week – Climate feedbacks demystified in polar regions

Figure 1: Major climate feedbacks operating in polar regions. Plus / minus signs mean that the feedbacks are positive / negative. Yellow and red arrows show solar shortwave and infrared radiation fluxes, respectively. Orange arrows show the flux exchanges between the different components of the climate system (ocean, atmosphere, ice) for several feedbacks. TOA refers to ‘top of the atmosphere’ [Credit: Fig 1 from Goosse et al. (2018)].

Over the recent decades, the Arctic has warmed twice as fast as the whole globe. This stronger warming, called “Arctic Amplification“, especially occurs in the Arctic because ice, ocean and atmosphere interact strongly, sometimes amplifying the warming, sometimes reducing it. These interactions are called “feedbacks” and are illustrated in our Image of the Week. Let’s see why these feedbacks are important, how we can measure them and what their implications are.


Climate feedbacks in polar regions

When it comes to climate science, feedback loops are very common. A climate feedback is a process that will either reinforce or diminish the effect of an initial perturbation in the climate system.

If the initial perturbation, for instance the warming of a region, is amplified by this process, we talk about a “positive feedback”. A positive feedback can be seen as a “vicious circle” as it will lead to an ever-ongoing amplification of the perturbation. The most prominent positive feedback in the Arctic is the “ice-albedo feedback“: as the surface warms, ice melts away, exposing darker surfaces to sunlight, which absorb more heat, leading to even more melting of the ice around.

On the contrary, if the initial perturbation is dampened by the process, we talk about a “negative feedback”. An example for a negative feedback is the “ice production-entrainment feedback”. In winter, when sea ice forms, it rejects salt into the ocean. As a result, the top ocean layer becomes denser and starts to sink. As the surface water sinks, it leaves room for warmer water below to rise to the surface. This warmer ocean surface then inhibits the formation of new sea ice.

The main climate feedbacks at play in polar regions involve the atmosphere, ocean and sea ice. They are represented in our Image of the Week. Plus and minus signs in this figure mean that the feedbacks are positive and negative, respectively.

 

How can we measure these feedbacks?

All the climate feedbacks depicted in our Image of the Week are far from being totally understood and are usually measured using different methods. That is why a new study (from which our Image of the Week is taken) proposes a common framework to quantify them.

In this framework, the feedback factor is the ratio between the changes due to the feedback only and the response of the full system including all feedbacks. It is positive for a positive feedback and negative for a negative feedback. In order to compute this feedback factor, we need to identify:

  1. the perturbation
  2. the reference variable involved in the feedback loop
  3. the full system, which includes all feedbacks
  4. the reference system in which the feedback under consideration does not operate.

 

If we take the example of the “ice production-entrainment feedback” (explained above):

  1. the perturbation is a given amount of sea-ice production
  2. the reference variable is sea-ice thickness
  3. the full system is sea ice and the ocean column with the entrainment process
  4. the reference system is sea ice and the ocean column without entrainment.

 

The feedback factor related to the “ice production-entrainment feedback” is then the ratio between the changes in ice thickness due to the feedback only and the total changes in ice thickness following a given amount of ice production. As it is a negative feedback, the related feedback factor is negative. As illustrated in Fig. 2, this feedback factor becomes even more negative, i.e. the strength of the feedback increases, with higher ice production. Therefore, this feedback is highly nonlinear, which is typical of feedbacks in polar regions.

Figure 2: Feedback factor related to the ice production-entrainment feedback as a function of ice production. It is computed from mean temperature and salinity profiles in the Weddel Sea for January-February 1990-2005 [Credit: Fig. 5 from Goosse et al. (2018)].

The advantage of this framework is that you can apply it to all feedbacks present in our Image of the Week. Therefore, it is possible to compute their effects in a similar way, making the comparison easier.

 

Reducing uncertainties in model projections

Accounting for all those climate feedbacks is difficult, as they involve several components of the climate system and interactions between them. Therefore, their misrepresentation (or lack of representation) is one of the sources of error in model projections, i.e. climate model runs going up to 2100 and beyond. Climate feedbacks are therefore one explanation why models largely disagree when it comes to projecting global temperature and sea-ice evolution.

This means that, if we want to better predict what is going to happen in the polar regions, we must better measure what the feedbacks do in reality and better represent them in climate models.

On the modelling side, the main problem is that feedbacks are often described qualitatively to understand climate processes, and many models cannot evaluate these feedbacks quantitatively. There is therefore a clear motivation to use the common framework presented in this study to compute climate feedbacks in models.

However, additionally to improving model projections, identifying the critical climate feedbacks at play in polar regions is also a way to better target observational campaigns, such as the Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP) and the Multidisciplinary drifting Observatory for the Study of Arctic Climate (MOSAiC).

 

References

Edited by Sophie Berger and Clara Burgard


David Docquier is a post-doctoral researcher at the Earth and Life Institute of Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) in Belgium. He works on the development of processed-based sea-ice metrics in order to improve the evaluation of global climate models (GCMs). His study is embedded within the EU Horizon 2020 PRIMAVERA project, which aims at developing a new generation of high-resolution GCMs to better represent the climate.

Image of the Week – Inspiring Girls!

Image of the Week – Inspiring Girls!

What, you may ask, are this group of 22 women doing standing around a fire-pit and what does this have to do with the EGU Cryosphere blog? This group of scientists, artists, teachers, and coaches gathered 2 weeks ago in Switzerland to learn how to become instructors on an Inspiring Girls Expedition. But what, you may ask again, is an Inspiring Girls Expedition? Well read on to find out more…


What is an Inspiring Girls Expedition?

In 1999 Glaciologist Erin Petit, Geographer Michele Koppes, and 5 high-school girls hiked out onto the South Cascade Glacier in Washington State. For the next week, this motley crew spent their time camped out on a glacier moraine, exploring the landscape and performing scientific experiments by day, and talking and listening to each others thoughts and stories by night – that was the birth of Girls on Ice.

Over the next 13 years, more expeditions took place and more instructors (scientists, artists and mountain guides) started to get involved. In 2012, a second Girls on Ice expedition was born in Alaska and, in the years since, there have been Girls on Ice expeditions in 4 different locations and in 2 different languages! The idea has expanded to other areas of wilderness expedition as well, with new projects starting up: Girls on Rock, Girls in Icy Fjords and Girls on Water – nowadays these expedition are collectively known as Inspiring Girls Expeditions!

But I haven’t really answered the question – what is an Inspiring Girls Expedition? It is a wilderness and science education program for high-school aged girls. Over the course of around 12 days, these girls get the chance to explore a wilderness setting, learn about scientific thinking, increase self-confidence, and push their physical and intellectual boundaries as part of a single-gendered team. And, importantly – it’s FREE – opening it up to girls who might not have the financial means to do something like this otherwise. Everyone who goes on the expedition from scientists to mountain guides and instructors is female, making this expedition pretty unique! I think the philosophy of Inspiring Girls is best described by their mission statement:

Our mission is to bring out your natural curiosity, inspire your interest in science, connect the arts and sciences, free you from gender roles, provide a less competitive atmosphere, and encourage trust in your physical abilities.

The workshop

I’ve been following the work of Girls on Ice for a while, so when I saw a chance to go on an instructor training course, I enthusiastically signed up! Over 4 days in June 2018, a group of women from at least 8 different countries got together in a hiking hut in Switzerland for an Inspiring Girls Instructor Workshop, hosted by Swiss Girls on Ice. We came from a broad range of backgrounds: glaciologists, climate scientists, biologists, artists, architects, professional coaches, teachers (I hope I haven’t forgotten anyone!). We started off by learning more about the Inspiring Girls philosophy, what they expeditions aim to teach, and how they keep the girls safe and deal with any issues that might arise. Then came the thinking part for us…How do you teach in a wilderness setting? How to keep teenage girls engaged in what you are doing? What is a good leader? This gave us a lot of food for thought and we discussed a lot of these issues late into the evenings!

Then the fun part (although we all look rather serious in the pictures – below), working on ideas for new Inspiring Girls Expeditions (the current expeditions are often over-subscribed so there is certainly scope for more expeditions in more places) with the hope of inspiring more girls! So definitely watch this space for more expeditions coming to a mountain, cave or forest near you!

Figure 2: Workshop participants designing new Inspiring Girls Expeditions [Credit: Marijke Habermann]

It was a fantastic few days, with a fantastic bunch of women and I certainly came away feeling inspired myself!

I have to admit, this isn’t your usual Image of the Week blog post, however, I hope the relevance to scientists, science educators, and anyone else that follows the blog is clear! There is a need to show girls and young women that they have the potential to do what they want: be that a glaciologist, a mountain guide (both very much male dominated careers) or something entirely different! This type of expedition, in a single-gendered environment, is a very effective way to help build courage, confidence, and self-reliance!

This sounds cool – how can I get involved?

The team at Inspiring Girls are always looking for new people who are keen and enthusiastic about their project to get involved as volunteers, by donating a bit of cash or simply spreading the word about the expeditions – check their website to see how you can help out!

Edited by Clara Burgard