CR
Cryospheric Sciences

Antarctica

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 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 — Quantifying Antarctica’s ice loss

Fig. 1 Cumulative Antarctic Ice Sheet mass change since 1992. [Credit: Fig 2. from The IMBIE team (2018), reprinted with permission from Nature]

It is this time of the year, where any news outlet is full of tips on how to lose weight rapidly to  become beach-body ready. According to the media avalanche following the publication of the ice sheet mass balance inter-comparison exercise (IMBIE) team’s Nature paper, Antarctica is the biggest loser out there. In this Image of the Week, we explain how the international team managed to weight Antarctica’s ice sheet and what they found.


Estimating the Antarctic ice sheet’s mass change

There are many ways to quantify Antarctica’s mass and mass change and most of them rely on satellites. In fact, the IMBIE team notes that there are more than 150 papers published on the topic. Their paper that we highlight this week is remarkable in that it combines all the methods in order to produce just one, easy to follow, time series of Antarctica’s mass change. But what are these methods? The IMBIE team  used estimates from three types of methods:

  •  altimetry: tracking changes in elevation of the ice sheet, e.g. to detect a thinning;
  •  gravimetry: tracking changes in the gravitational pull caused by a change in mass;
  •  input-output: comparing changes in snow accumulation and solid ice discharge.

To simplify, let’s imagine that you’re trying to keep track of how much weight you’re losing/gaining. Then  altimetry would be like looking at yourself in a mirror, gravimetry would be stepping on a scale, and input-output would be counting all the calories you’re taking in and  burning out. None of these methods will tell you directly whether you have lost belly fat, but combining them will.

The actual details of each methods are rather complex and cover more pages than the core of the paper, so I invite you to read them by yourself (from page 5 onwards). But long story short, all estimates were turned into one unique time series of ice sheet mass balance (purple line on Fig. 1). Furthermore, to understand how each region of Antarctica contributed to the time series, the scientists also produced one time series per main  Antarctic region (Fig. 2): the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (green line), the East Antarctic Ice Sheet (yellow line), and the Antarctic Peninsula (red line) .

Antarctica overview map. [Credit: NASA]

Antarctica is losing ice

The results are clear: the Antarctic ice sheet as a whole is losing mass, and this mass loss is accelerating. Nearly 3000 Giga tonnes since 1992. That is 400 billion elephants in 25 years, or on average 500 elephants per second.

Most of this signal originates from West Antarctica, with a current trend of 159 Gt (22 billion elephants) per year. And most of this West Antarctic signal comes from the Amundsen Sea sector, host notably to the infamous  Pine Island  and Thwaites Glaciers.

The Antarctic ice sheet has lost “400 billion elephants in 25 years”

But how is the ice disappearing? Rather, is the ice really disappearing, or is there simply less ice added to Antarctica than ice naturally removed, i.e. a change in surface mass balance? The IMBIE team studied this as well. And they found that there is no Antarctic ice sheet wide trend in surface mass balance; in other words Antarctica is shrinking because more and more ice is discharged into the ocean, not because it receives less snow from the atmosphere.

Floating ice shelf in the Halley embayment, East Antarctica [Credit: Céline Heuzé]

What is happening in East Antarctica?

Yet another issue with determining Antarctica’s weight loss is Glacial Isostatic Adjustment. In a nutshell, ice is heavy, and its weight pushes the ground down. When the ice disappears, the ground goes back up, but much more slowly than the rate of ice melting . This process has been ongoing in Scandinavia notably since the end of the last ice age 21 000 years ago, but it is also happening in East Antarctica by about 5 to 7 mm per year (more information here). Except that there are very few on site GPS measurements in Antarctica to determine how much land is rising, and the many estimations of this uplifting disagree.

So as summarised by the IMBIE team, we do not know yet what the change in ice thickness is where glacial isostatic adjustment is strong, because we are unsure how strong this adjustment is there. As a result in East Antarctica, we do not know whether there is ice loss or not, because it is unclear what the ground is doing.

What do we do now?

The IMBIE team concludes their paper with a list of required actions to improve the ice loss time series: more in-situ observations using airborne radars and GPS, and uninterrupted satellite observations (which we already insisted on earlier).

What about sea level rise, you may think. Or worse, looking at our image of the week, you see the tiny +6mm trend in 10 years and think that it is not much. No, it is not. But note that the trend is far from linear and has been actually accelerating in the last decades…

 

Reference/Further reading

The IMBIE Team, 2018. Mass balance of the Antarctic Ice Sheet from 1992-2017. Nature 558, 219–222.

Edited by Sophie Berger

Image of the Week – Super-cool colours of icebergs

Image of the Week – Super-cool colours of icebergs

It is Easter weekend! And as we do not want you to forget about our beloved cryosphere, we provide you with a picture nearly as colourful as the Easter eggs: very blue icebergs! What makes them so special? This is what this Image of the Week is about…


What are icebergs made of?

Fig.2: An iceberg with ‘scallop’ indentations [Credit: Stephen Warren].

Icebergs are chunks of ice which break off from land ice, such as glaciers or ice sheets (as you’ll know if you remember our previous post on icebergs). This means that they are mostly made up of glacial ice, which is frozen freshwater from accumulated snowfall. However, in some places where ice sheets extend to the coastline, making an ice shelf, icebergs can be made up of a different type of ice too.

 

Ice shelves can descend far down into the ocean. Seawater in contact with the ice at depth in the ocean is cooled to the freezing temperature. Because the freezing temperature decreases with decreasing pressure, if the seawater moves upwards in the ocean, it will have a temperature lower than the freezing temperature at that depth. That means it’s super-cooled – the seawater temperature is below the freezing temperature, but it hasn’t become a solid. The seawater cannot last for long in this state and freezes to the base of ice shelves as marine ice, which is seawater frozen at depth. The marine ice can help stabilize the ice shelf as it is less susceptible to fractures than glacial ice. Icebergs that calve from Antarctic ice shelves can sometimes be mixtures of glacial ice (on the top) and marine ice (on the bottom).

 

What can icebergs tell us?

Icebergs which tip over can tell us about processes that happen at the base of ice shelves. For example, scallops on the ice (the small indentations that can be seen in the second picture) can show the size of turbulent ocean eddies in the ocean at the ice shelf base. Basal cavities or channels show where oceanic melt had a large impact. Any colours visible in the iceberg can also give us information.

Fig.3: Marine ice containing organic matter, giving a greenish appearance [Credit: Stephen Warren].

Why are icebergs different colours?

Like snow (see this previous post), different types of ice appear different colours. A typical iceberg is white because it is covered with dense snow, and snowflakes reflect all wavelengths of ice equally. The albedo of snow, which is the proportion of the incident light or radiation that is reflected by a surface, is very high (nearly 1). Glacial ice is compressed snow, meaning it has fewer light-scattering air bubbles, so light can penetrate deeper than in snow, and more yellows and reds from the visible spectrum are absorbed. This results in a bubbly blue colour, with a slightly lower albedo than snow. Marine ice does not have bubbles, but light can be scattered by cracks, resulting in clear blue ice (see our Image of the Week). However, if the seawater from which the marine ice was formed contained organic matter, like algae and plankton, the resulting marine ice can have a yellowish or even green appearance (Fig. 3). If the marine ice formed near the base of an ice shelf where it meets the sea floor, it could contain sediment, giving it a dirty or black appearance.

So the colour of icebergs can tell us something about how ice was formed hundreds of metres below the ocean surface. You could even say that was super-cool…

Further reading

  • Warren, S. G., C. S. Roesler, V. I. Morgan, R. E. Brandt, I. D. Goodwin, and I. Allison (1993), Green icebergs formed by freezing of organic-rich seawater to the base of Antarctic ice shelves, J. Geophys. Res., 98(C4), 6921–6928, doi:10.1029/92JC02751.
  • Morozov, E.G., Marchenko, A.V. & Fomin, Y.V. Izv. (2015): Supercooled water near the Glacier front in Spitsbergen, Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 51(2), 203-207. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433815020115
  • Image of the Week – Ice Ice Bergy
  • Image of the Week – Fifty shades of snow

This post is based on a talk by Stephen Warren presented at AMOS-ICSHMO2018

Edited by Clara Burgard


Lettie Roach is a PhD student at Victoria University of Wellington and the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand. Her project is on the representation of sea ice in large-scale models, including model development, model-observation comparisons and observation of small-scale sea ice processes.  

 

Image of the Week – Geothermal heat flux in Antarctica: do we really know anything?

Spatial distributions of geothermal heat flux: (A) Pollard et al. (2005) constant values, (B) Shapiro and Ritzwoller (2004): seismic model, (C) Fox Maule et al. (2005): magnetic measurements, (D) Purucker (2013): magnetic measurements, (E) An et al. (2015): seismic model and (F) Martos et al. (2017): high resolution magnetic measurements. The color scale is truncated at 30 and 80 mW m-2. The black line locates the grounding line. Note, (B)-(F) are in order of publication from oldest to most recent. [Credit: Brice Van Liefferinge, (2018), PhD thesis]

Geothermal heat flux is the major unknown when we evaluate the temperature and the presence/absence of water at the bed of the Antarctic Ice Sheet. This information is crucial for the Beyond Epica Oldest Ice project, which aims to find a continuous ice core spanning 1.5 million years (see this previous post). A lot of work has been done* to determine geothermal heat flux under the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet, and all conclude that additional direct measurements are necessary to refine basal conditions! However direct measurements are difficult to obtain, due to the thick layer of ice that covers the bedrock. Our new image of the week goes over what we currently know about the geothermal heat flux in Antarctica and presents the five data sets that currently exist. But first, let’s see where this heat flux come from?


What determines geothermal heat flux and how can we estimate it?

Heat flux measured at the surface of the Earth has two sources: (i) primordial heat remaining from when the Earth formed and (ii) contemporary-sourced heat coming from radioactive isotopes present in the mantle and the crust. This heat, concentrated in the Earth’s centre, can propagate to the surface through both conduction in the solid earth (inner core and crust) and convection in the liquid-viscous earth (outer core, lower and upper mantles). The net heat flux to reach the surface of the crust and penetrate the overlying ice is what we refer to as the ‘geothermal heat flux’. Wherever the crust is thinner, convection in the mantle can transfer heat more efficiently to the surface. In those locations, the net geothermal heat flux is higher, and vice versa. At mid-ocean ridges and in active volcanic areas, the heat can be delivered almost directly to the surface by advection (i.e. by the movement of magma), therefore leading to a higher net surface geothermal heat flux (think of Iceland, where the shallow crust allows them to take advantage of geothermal heat flux directly).

As a result, we know that the geology determines the magnitude of the geothermal heat flux and the geology is not homogeneous underneath the Antarctic Ice Sheet:  West Antarctica and East Antarctica are significantly distinct in their crustal rock formation processes and ages.

Nowadays, five independent global geothermal heat flux data sets exist: Shapiro and Ritzwoller, (2004); Fox Maule et al., (2005); Purucker, (2013); An et al., (2015); Martos et al., (2017) (see image of the week). All geothermal heat flux data sets compiled and currently used have been inferred from the properties of the crust and the upper mantle, as geology dictates the magnitude of geothermal heat flux spatially. Let’s see together how the estimation of geothermal heat flux has evolved over the years….

Using constant values (Panel A)

The simplest method, which consists in using a constant value of geothermal heat flux over the entire continent, was common at first and is still sometimes used (e.g. sensitivity tests and model intercomparison projects) as it facilitates model inter-comparisons. Pollard et al. (2005), in panel A, used bands of constant geothermal heat flux values (70, 60, 55 and 41 mW m-2), with geothermal heat flux decreasing from West Antarctica to East Antarctica, consistent with the known geology.

2004, a seismic model (Panel B)

Shapiro and Ritzwoller (2004) are the first to propose a geothermal heat flux distribution map based on seismic methods, and not strictly on rock composition. They extrapolate the geothermal heat flux from a global seismic model of the crust and the upper mantle which is an analysis of seismicity all over the world. Regions of the globe are grouped by their similarity in seismic structure. Assuming that a certain magnitude of seismicity represents a certain geothermal heat flux value, they assign geothermal heat flux value to regions where geothermal heat flux cannot be directly measured by using geothermal heat flux data from regions of similar seismicity. The geothermal heat flux spatial distribution obtained, with values up to 80 mW m-2 in West Antarctica and 48 mW m-2 in East Antarctica, agrees with that of Pollard et al. (2005). However, errors associated with this method are quite large, reaching 50% of the geothermal heat flux value.

 

2005, magnetic measurements (Panel C)

A year later, Fox Maule et al. (2005) derive a geothermal heat flux map based on satellite magnetic measurements and a thermal model. The objective is to determine the depth to the Curie temperature, the temperature at which a material loses its permanent magnetic properties. They set the Curie temperature to 580 °C, while the temperature at the ice-bedrock interface is set at 0 °C. Satellite magnetic measurements allow the calculation of the depth of each of these boundaries. The geothermal heat flux is then obtained using a thermal model of the crust between the depth of the two boundary temperatures. This method also has a large associated error, 60% of the geothermal heat flux value for the East Antarctic interior.

2013, reanalysis of magnetic measurements (Panel D)

In 2013, Purucker updates the Fox Maule et al. (2005) geothermal heat flux map with new magnetic data. The spatial geothermal heat flux pattern obtained still retains the characteristic pattern of low values in West Antarctica and high values in East Antarctica, but predicts lower absolute values for East Antarctica and around the West Antarctic coast.

2015, new seismic model (Panel E)

More recently, An et al. (2015) derive a new geothermal heat flux distribution based on seismic velocities. The method is similar to that used by Shapiro and Ritzwoller (2004). They analyse the Earth’s mantle properties using a new 3D crustal shear velocity model to calculate crustal temperatures and the surface geothermal heat flux. However, their spatial distribution of geothermal heat flux differs quite a bit from the other data sets, particularly in East Antarctica where geothermal heat flux values differ by 10 mW m-2 from those of Shapiro and Ritzwoller (2004). An et al. (2015) find very low geothermal heat flux values at the domes, which is good news for the search of Oldest Ice, but rather high overall values for East Antarctica compared to the other data sets. They explain that the model is invalid for geothermal heat flux values exceeding 90 mW m-2. But such high values should only impact young crust areas, mainly West Antarctica and therefore the variability observed in East Antarctica cannot be explained.

2017, high resolution magnetic measurements (Panel F)

In 2017, Martos et al. provide a high resolution geothermal heat flux map based on the spectral analysis of airborne magnetic data. They use a compilation of all existing airborne magnetic data to determine the depth to the Curie temperature and infer the geothermal heat flux using a thermal model. Their continent-wide spatial distribution of geothermal heat flux obtained agrees with previous studies, but they show higher overall magnitudes of geothermal heat flux including East Antarctica. They report an error of 10 mW m-2 which is interestingly smaller than for the other data sets. However, their data set does not take into account point measurements of geothermal heat flux. The same year, Goodge (2017) calculates an average geothermal heat flux value of 48 mW m-2 for East Antarctica with a standard deviation of 13.6 mW m from the analysis of clasts in the region between Dome A and the Ross Sea. A geothermal heat flux value of 48 mW m-2 is consistent with the mean value of the data sets described above.

All in all

To sum up, although all geothermal heat flux data sets agree on continent scales (with higher values under the West Antarctic ice sheet and lower values under East Antarctica), there is a lot of variability in the predicted geothermal heat flux from one data set to the next on smaller scales. A lot of work remains to be done …

* (e.g. Shapiro and Ritzwoller, 2004; Fox Maule et al., 2005; Purucker, 2013; An et al., 2015; Fisher et al., 2015; Parrenin et al., 2017; Seroussi et al., 2017; Martos et al., 2017; Goodge, 2017)

References

Van Liefferinge, B., Pattyn, F., Cavitte, M. G. P., Karlsson, N. B., Young, D. A., Sutter, J., and Eisen, O.: Promising Oldest Ice sites in East Antarctica based on thermodynamical modelling, The Cryosphere Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/tc-2017-276, in review, 2018.

Van Liefferinge, B. Thermal state uncertainty assessment of glaciers and ice sheets: Detecting promising Oldest Ice sites in Antarctica, PhD thesis, Université libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, 2018.

Edited by Sophie Berger


Brice Van Liefferinge  has just earned his PhD at the Laboratoire de Glaciology, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Belgium. His research focuses on the basal conditions of the ice sheets. He tweets as @bvlieffe.

Image of the Week – A Hole-y Occurrence, the reappearance of the Weddell Polynya

Image of the Week – A Hole-y Occurrence, the reappearance of the Weddell Polynya

During both the austral winters of 2016 and 2017, a famous feature of the Antarctic sea-ice cover was observed once again, 40 years after its first observed occurrence: the Weddell Polynya! The sea-ice cover exhibited a huge hole (of around 2600 km2 up to 80,000 km2 at its peak!), as shown on our Image of the Week. What makes this event so unique and special?


Why does the Weddell Polynya form?

The Weddell Polynya is an open ocean polynya (a large hole in the sea ice, see this previous post), observed in the Weddell Sea (see Fig.2). It was first observed in the 1970s but then did not form for a very long time, until 2016 and 2017…

 

Fig. 2: Map of the sea ice distribution around Antarctica on 25th of September 2017, derived from satellite data. The red circle marks the actual Weddell Polynya [Credit: Modified from meereisportal.de]

In the Southern Ocean, warm saline water masses underlie cold, fresh surface water masses. The upper cold fresh layer acts like a lid, insulating the warmer deep waters from the cold atmosphere. While coastal polynyas (see this previous post) are caused by coastal winds, open ocean polynyas are more mysteriously formed as it is not as clear what causes the warm deep water to be mixed upwards. In the case of the Weddell polynya, it forms above an underwater mountain range, the Maud Rise. This ridge is an obstacle to the water flow and can therefore enhance vertical mixing of the deeper warm saline water masses. The warm water that reaches the surface melts any overlying sea ice, and large amounts of heat is lost from the ocean surface to the atmosphere (see Fig. 3).

 

Fig. 3: Schematic of polynya formation. The Weddell polynya is an open ocean polynya [Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center].

 

Why do we care about the Weddell Polynya?

Overturning and mixing of the water column in the Weddell Polynya forms cold, dense Antarctic Bottom Water, releasing heat stored in the ocean to the atmosphere in the process. Antarctic Bottom Water is formed in the Southern Ocean (predominantly in the Ross and Weddell Seas) and flows northwards, forming the lower branch of the overturning circulation which transports heat from the equator to the poles (see Fig. 4). Antarctic Bottom Water also carries oxygen to the rest of the Earth’s deep oceans. The absence of the Weddell polynya could reduce the formation rate of Antarctic Bottom water, which could weaken the lower branch of the overturning circulation.

Fig.4: Schematic of the overturning (thermohaline) circulation. Deep water formation sites are marked by yellow ovals. Modified from: Rahmstorf, 2002 [©Springer Nature. Used with permission.]

How often does the Weddell Polynya form?

The last time the Weddell Polynya was observed was during the austral winters of 1974 to 1976 (see Fig. 5). It was then absent for nearly 40 years (!) up until austral winter 2016. In a modelling study, de Lavergne et al. 2014 suggested that the Weddell Polynya used to be more common before anthropogenic CO2 emissions started rising at a fast pace. The increased surface freshwater input from melting glaciers and ice sheets, and increased precipitation (as climate change increases the hydrological cycle) have freshened the surface ocean. This freshwater acts again as a lid on top of the warm deeper waters, preventing open ocean convection, reducing the production of Antarctic Bottom Water.

Fig. 5: Color-coded sea ice concentration maps derived from passive microwave satellite data in the Weddell Sea region from the 1970s. The Weddell Polynya is the extensive area of open water (in blue) [Credit: Gordon et al., 2007, ©American Meteorological Society. Used with permission.].

The reappearance of the Weddell Polynya over the past two winters despite the increased surface freshwater input suggests that other natural sources of variability may be currently masking this predicted trend towards less open ocean deep convection. Latif et al. 2013 put forward a theory describing centennial scale variability of Weddell Sea open ocean deep convection, as seen in climate models. In this theory, there are two modes of operation, one where there is no open ocean convection and the Weddell Polynya is not present. In this situation, sea surface temperatures are cold and the deep ocean is warm, and there is relatively large amount of sea ice. The heat at depth increases with time, as it is insulated by the sea ice and freshwater lid. Then, eventually, the deep water becomes warm enough that the stratification is decreased sufficiently so that open water convection begins again, forming the Weddell Polynya. This process continues until the heat reservoir depletes and surface freshwater forcing switches off the deep convection. Models show that the timescale of this variability is set by the stratification, and models with stronger stratification tend to vary on longer timescale, as the heat needs to build up more in order to overcome the stratification.

 

In the end, the Weddell Polynya is still surrounded by some mystery… Only the next decades will bring us more insight into the true reasons for the appearance and disappearance of the Weddell Polynya…

 

Further reading

Edited by Clara Burgard


Rebecca Frew is a PhD student at the University of Reading (UK). She investigates the importance of feedbacks between the sea ice, atmosphere and ocean for the Antarctic sea ice cover using a hierarchy of climate models. In particular, she is looking at the how the importance of different feedbacks may vary between different regions of the Southern Ocean.
Contact: r.frew@pgr.reading.ac.uk

Image of the Week – Vibrating Ice Shelf!

Image of the Week – Vibrating Ice Shelf!

If you listen carefully to the Ekström ice shelf in Antarctica, a strange sound can be heard! The sound of a vibrating truck sending sounds waves into the ice. These sound waves are used to “look” through the ice and create a seismic profile of what lies beneath the ice surface. Read on to find out how the technique works and for a special Cryosphere Christmas message!


What are we doing with this vibrating truck on an ice shelf?

In early December a team from the Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI) made a science traverse of the Ekström ice shelf, near the German Neumayer III Station. Their aim was to make a seismic survey of the area. The seismic source (sound source) used to make this survey was a vibrating truck, known as a Vibroseis source (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2: The Vibroseis truck. It is attached to a “poly-sled” so that it can be easily towed across the ice shelf. The vibrating plate can be seen suspended below the centre of the truck. [Credit: Judith Neunhaeuserer]

It has a round metal plate, which is lowered onto the ice-shelf surface and vibrates at a range of frequencies, sending sound waves into the ice. When the snow is soft the plate often sinks a little, leaving a rather strange “footprint” in the snow (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3: The “footprint” of the Vibroseis truck plate in the snow [Credit: Olaf Eisen].

The sound waves generated travel through the ice shelf, through the water underneath and into the rock and sediment of the sea floor, they are reflected back off these different layer and these reflections are recorded back on the ice surface by a string of recording instruments – geophones (Fig 1). There are sixty geophones in a long string, a snow streamer, which can be towed behind the truck as it moves from location to location. By analyzing how long it takes the sound waves to travel from the source to the geophones an “image” of the structures beneath the ice can be made. For example, you can see a reflection from the bottom of the ice shelf and from the sea floor as well as different layers of rock and sediment beneath the sea floor. This allows the team to look into the geological and glaciological history of the area, as well as understand current glaciology and oceanographic processes!

 

As it happens, the team from AWI consists of your very own EGU Cryosphere Division President, Olaf Eisen and ECS Rep, Emma Smith! As this is the last post before Christmas, we wanted to wish you a merry Christmas from Antarctica!

Merry Christmas! As you can see the weather is beautiful here! [Credit: Jan-Marcus Nasse]

Edited by Sophie Berger

Image of the Week – Understanding Antarctic Sea Ice Expansion

Fig. 1: Average monthly Antarctic sea ice extent time series in black, with the small increasing trend in blue. [Credit: NSIDC]

Sea ice is an extremely sensitive indicator of climate change. Arctic sea ice has been dubbed ‘the canary in the coal mine’, due to the observed steady decline in the summer sea ice extent in response to global warming over recent decades (see this and this previous posts). However, the story has not been mirrored at the other pole. As shown in our image of the week (blue line in Fig. 1), Antarctic sea ice has actually been expanding slightly overall!


The net expansion is the result of opposing regional trends

The small increasing trend in Antarctic sea-ice extent is the sum of opposing regional trends (click here for definitions of area, concentration and extent). Sea ice in the Weddell and Ross seas has expanded whereas in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen (A-B) seas the sea-ice cover has diminished (Holland 2014). The size of these trends varies with the seasons (Fig. 2). There are no significant trends in ice concentration – the fraction of a chosen area/grid box that is sea ice covered — if you look at (Southern hemisphere) winter values, however we do see trends when looking at a time series of summer values. The differences in trends between seasons suggests interactions with atmosphere and ocean (feedbacks) that amplify (in the spring) and dampen (in the autumn) changes in the ice cover, creating this seasonality. Some of this variability can be explained by changes in the winds (Holland and Kwok, 2012). But the complexity of the trends can’t be explained by one single change in forcing (e.g. winds, snowfall or temperature) or a single process (e.g. ice albedo feedback acting in the spring/summer).

 

Fig. 2: Seasonal trend in ice concentration. Maximum trends are seen in summer. Large increases are seen in the Weddell and Ross seas, and decreases in the Amundsen and Bellingshausen (A-B) seas. [Credit: Fig 2 from Holland (2014). , reprinted with permission by Wiley and Sons].

Why hasn’t Antarctic sea ice extent been decreasing?

There is no clear consensus on this. In short, we don’t really know… It is not as intuitive as the ‘warmer climate results in less ice’ narrative for the Arctic. We only have a time series of Antarctic sea ice extent from 1979 (the start of satellite observations). We therefore can’t be sure what role natural variability is having on decadal and longer timescales, i.e. if this is just natural ups and downs or an “unusual” trend related to climate change. Another difficulty is that we don’t have a reliable time series of sea ice volume as we have difficulties in getting reliable sea ice thickness measurements, because of the thick snow covering on sea ice in the Southern Ocean. For example, it could be that the ice is becoming thinner although the sea-ice area has increased.

There are important processes and/or feedbacks between sea ice and ocean or between sea ice and atmosphere that we are missing from our models

Currently, global climate models are poor at reproducing the observed Antarctic sea ice changes (Turner et al. 2013). Models simulate a decrease in the overall sea ice extent, instead of the observed increase. They also fail to reproduce the correct spatial variations, as shown in Fig. 2. This makes it very hard to make predictions about future changes in Antarctic sea ice from model results, and implies that there are important processes and/or feedbacks between sea ice and ocean or between sea ice and atmosphere that we are missing from our models, and therefore our understanding of the Southern Ocean climate system is incomplete.

 

However, there are some suggestions as to processes that could explain some of the observed Antarctic sea ice variability. The largely fall into two main categories: natural variability and anthropogenic changes.

 

1.Natural Variability

Natural variability refers to the repeating oscillations and patterns we see in the climate system. Some of these repeating patterns can be correlated with increases/decreases in Antarctic sea ice. In particular El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Annular Mode (SAM) have been linked to Antarctic sea ice changes. The SAM is a measure of the difference in pressure between 40°S and 65°S, a positive SAM indicates a stronger difference in pressure, driving stronger westerly winds around Antarctica, increasing the thermal isolation of Antarctica. Stronger westerlies are associated with cooler sea surface temperatures and expansion of the sea ice cover on short  timescales (seasons to years).

The SAM has been in a mostly positive phase since the mid-1990s, so is believed may have something to do with some of the small increase in sea ice extent we have seen. However, variability on longer time scales (decades or longer) could also explain some of the small increase, but this is tricky to assess without a longer observational time series.

 

2. Anthropogenic Changes

The main two human-induced changes on the Antarctic climate system are the ozone hole and increased melting of the Antarctic ice sheet.

  • Ozone hole
    The ozone hole causes the westerly winds to strengthen, making the sea ice cover expand. However it is more complicated than this, as the impact on the sea ice may depend on what timescale we look at. Over longer timescales (years to decades) the initial response may be outweighed by an increase in ocean upwelling (due to the stronger winds). This brings warm water from below the cold surface layer up to the surface, melting the sea ice from below, eventually resulting in a net sea ice area decrease in response to the ozone hole. See Ferreira et al. (2015) for details.
  • Increased melting of the Antarctic ice sheet
    This could also play a role in the observed sea ice expansion, by increasing the ocean stratification. This results in a cooler and fresher surface layer, favouring the growth of sea ice (Bintanja et al. 2015).

 

It is very tricky to distinguish what is natural variability, what is human induced, or a complicated combination of two.

 

It is very tricky to distinguish what is natural variability, what is human induced, or a complicated combination of two. This means we don’t really know whether the observed large decrease in Antarctic sea ice extent seen in 2016/2017 (read more about it here) is just an anomaly or the start of a decreasing trend. So, in summary Antarctic sea ice is confusing, and we still can’t claim to completely understand observed variability. But this makes it interesting and means there is still a wealth of secrets left to be discovered about Antarctic sea ice!

 

Further reading

 

Edited by Clara Burgard et Sophie Berger


Rebecca Frew is a PhD student at the University of Reading (UK). She investigates the importance of feedbacks between the sea ice, atmosphere and ocean for the Antarctic sea ice cover using a hierarchy of climate models. In particular, she is looking at the how the importance of different feedbacks may vary between different regions of the Southern Ocean.
Contact: r.frew@pgr.reading.ac.uk

Image of the Week — Climate change and disappearing ice

The first week of the Climate Change summit in Bonn (COP 23  for those in the know) has been marked by Syria’s decision to sign the Paris Accord, the international agreement that aims at tackling climate change. This decision means that the United States would become the only country outside the agreement if it were to complete the withdrawal process vowed by President Trump.

In this context, it has become a tradition for this blog to use the  United Nations climate talks as an excuse to remind us all of some basic facts about climate change and its effect on the part we are most interested in here: the cryosphere! This year we have decided to showcase a few compelling animations, as we say “a picture is sometimes worth a thousand words”…


Arctic sea ice volume

Daily Arctic sea ice volume is estimated by the PIOMAS reconstruction from 1979-present [Credit: Ed Hawkins]

The volume of Arctic sea ice has declined over the last 4 decades and reached a record low in September 2012. Shrinking sea ice has major consequences on the climate system: by decreasing the albedo of the Arctic surface, by affecting the global ocean circulation, etc.

More information about Arctic sea ice:

Land ice losses in Antarctica and Greenland

Change in land ice mass since 2002 (Right: Greenland, Left: Antarctica). Data is measured by NASA’s Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites. [Credit: Zack Labe]

Both the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets have been losing ice since 2002, contributing to global sea-level rise (see previous post about sea level) .  An ice loss of 100 Gt raises the  sea level by ~0.28 mm (see explanations  here).

More information about ice loss from the ice sheets:

 

The cause: CO2 emissions and global warming

Finally we could not close this post without showing  how the concentration of carbon dioxide have evolved  over the same period and how this has led to global warming.

CO₂ concentration and global mean temperature 1958 – present. [Credit:Kevin Pluck]

More information about CO2 and temperature change

  • Global Temperature | NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming
  • Carbon dioxide | NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

More visualisation resources

Visualisation resources | Climate lab

 

Edited by Clara Burgard

Back to the Front – Larsen C Ice Shelf in the Aftermath of Iceberg A68!

Back to the Front – Larsen C Ice Shelf in the Aftermath of Iceberg A68!

Much of the Antarctic continent is fringed by ice shelves. An ice shelf is the floating extension of a terrestrial ice mass and, as such, is an important ‘middleman’ that regulates the delivery of ice from land into the ocean: for much of Antarctica, ice that passes from land into the sea does so via ice shelves. I’ve been conducting geophysical experiments on ice for over a decade, using mostly seismic and radar methods to determine the physical condition of ice and its wider system, but it’s only in the last couple of years that I’ve been using these methods on ice shelves. The importance of ice shelf processes is becoming more widely recognised in glaciological circles: after hearing one of my seminars last year, a glaciology professor told me that he was revising his previous opinion that ice shelves were largely ‘passengers’ in the grand scheme of things and this recognition is becoming more common. Slowly, we are coming to appreciate that ice shelves have their own specific dynamics and, moreover, that they are the drivers of change on other ice masses.


The MIDAS Project

In 2015, I joined the MIDAS project – led by Swansea and Aberystwyth Universities and funded by the Natural Environment Research Council – dedicated to investigating the effects of a warming climate on the Larsen C ice shelf in West Antarctica (Fig. 1). My role was to to assist with geophysical surveys (Fig. 2) on the ice shelf – but more about that later!

Figure 2: Adam Booth overseeing seismic surveys on the Larsen C ice
shelf in 2015 [Credit: Suzanne Bevan].

Larsen C is located towards the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula, and is one of a number of “Larsen neighbours” that fringe its eastern cost. MIDAS turns out to have been an extremely timely study, culminating in 2017 just as Larsen C hit the headlines by calving one of the largest icebergs – termed A68 – ever recorded. On 12th July 2017, 12% of the Larsen C area was sliced away by a sporadically-propagating rift through the eastern edge of the shelf, resulting in an iceberg with 5800 km2 area (two Luxembourgs, one Delaware, one-quarter Wales…). As of 14th October 2017 (Fig. 1), A68 is drifting into the Weddell Sea, with open ocean between it and Larsen C. See our previous post “Ice ice bergy” to find out more about how and why ice berg movement is monitored.

The aftermath of A68

As colossal as A68 (Fig, 1) is, its record-breaking statistics are only (hnnngh…) the tip of the iceberg, and of greater significance is the potential response of what remains of Larsen C. This potential is best appreciated by considering what happened to Larsen B, a northern neighbour of Larsen C. In early 2002, over 3000 km2 of Larsen B Ice Shelf underwent a catastrophic collapse, disintegrating into thousands of smaller icebergs (and immortalised in the music of the band British Sea Power). Rewind seven years further back, to 1995: Larsen B calved an enormous iceberg, exceeding 1700 m2 in area. An ominous extrapolation from this is that large iceberg calving somehow preconditions ice shelves to instability, and several models of Larsen C evolution suggest that it could follow Larsen B’s lead and become more vulnerable to collapse over the coming years.

The enormous mass of the intact ice shelf acts like a dam that blocks the delivery of terrestrial ice into the ocean, and the disappearance of the ice shelf removes so-called ‘backstress’ – essentially ‘breaking the dam’.

Then what? Well, ice shelves are in stress communication with their terrestrial tributaries, therefore processes affecting the shelf can propagate back to the supply glaciers. The enormous mass of the intact ice shelf acts like a dam that blocks the delivery of terrestrial ice into the ocean, and the disappearance of the ice shelf removes so-called ‘backstress’ – essentially ‘breaking the dam’. In the aftermath of Larsen B’s collapse, its tributary glaciers were seen to accelerate, thereby delivering more of their ice into the Weddell Sea. It is this aftermath that we are particularly concerned about, since it’s the accelerated tributaries that promote accelerated sea-level rise. Ice shelf collapse has little immediate impact on sea-level: since it is already floating, the shelf displaces all the water that it ever will. But, in moving more ice from the land to the sea, we risk increased sea levels and, with them, the associated socio-economic consequences.

How can we improve our predictions?

Figure 3: Computational model of the changed stress state, Δτuu, of Larsen C following the calving of A68 (output from BISICLES model, from Stephen Cornford, Swansea University). The stress change is keenly felt at the calving front, but also propagates further upstream [Credit: Stephen Cornford]

A key limitation in our ability to predict the evolution of Larsen C is a lack of observational evidence of how ice shelf stresses evolve in the short-term aftermath of a major calving event. These calving events are rare: we simply haven’t had much opportunity to investigate them, so while our computer predictions are based on valid physics (e.g., Fig. 3) it would be valuable to have actual observations to constrain them. Powerful satellite methods are available for tracking the behaviour of the shelf but these provide only the surface response; Larsen C is around 200 m thick at its calving front so there is plenty of ice that is hidden away from the satellite ‘eye in the sky’, but that is still adapting to the new stress regime. So how can we “see” into the ice?

To address this, we’ve recently been awarded an “Urgency Grant” – Response to the A68 Calving Event (RA68CE) – from NERC to send a fieldcrew to the Larsen C ice shelf, involving researchers from Leeds, Swansea and Aberystwyth, together with the British Geological and British Antarctic Surveys.

Figure 4: Emma Pearce and Dr Jim White preparing seismic equipment – intrepid geophysicists ready to wrap-up warm for field deployment on Larsen C! [Credit: Adam Booth]

The field team – Jim White and Emma Pearce (Fig. 4) – will undertake seismic and radar surveys at two main sites (Fig. 3) to assess the new stress regime around the Larsen C calving front. One of these sites is being reoccupied after seismic surveying in 2008-9, during the Swansea-led SOLIS project, allowing us to make a long-term comparison. These, and two other sites, will also be instrumented with EMLID REACH GPS sensors, to track small-scale ice movements than can’t be captured in the satellite data. The field observations will be supplied to a team of glacial modellers at Swansea University, to allow them to improve future predictions (e.g. Fig. 3), while their remote sensing team continues to monitor the evolving stress state at surface.

It’s truly exciting to be coordinating the first deployment, post A68, on Larsen C. Our data should provide a unique missing piece from the predictive jigsaw of Larsen C’s evolution, ultimately improving our understanding of the causes and effects of large-scale iceberg calving – both for Larsen C and beyond!

 

For ice-hot news from the field, follow Emma Pearce on twitter: @emm_pearce

 

Edited by Emma Smith


Further Reading

  • More information on Larsen C at the project MIDAS website
  • Learn more about ice shelf evolution with the Ice Flows game – eduction by stealth! Also check out the EGU Cryoblog post about it!
  • Borstad et al., 2017; Fracture propagation and stability of ice shelves governed by ice shelf heterogeneity; Geophysical Research Letters, 44, 4186-4194.
  • Wuite et al., 2015; Evolution of surface velocities and ice discharge of Larsen B outlet glaciers from 1995 to 2013. The Cryosphere, 9, 957-969.
  • Cornford et al., 2013; Adaptive mesh, finite volume modelling of marine ice sheets; Journal of Computational Physics, 232, 1, 529-549.

Adam Booth is a lecturer in Exploration Geophysics at the University of Leeds, UK. He is the PI on the NERC-funded project “Ice shelf response to large iceberg calving” (NE/R012334/1). After obtaining his PhD from the University of Leeds in 2008, he held postdoctoral positions at Swansea University and Imperial College London, in which he worked with diverse research applications of near-surface geophysics. He tweets as: @Geophysics_Adam