Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T05:39:49.942Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A general theory of glacier surges

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 August 2019

D. I. Benn*
Affiliation:
School of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, KY16 9AL, UK
A. C. Fowler
Affiliation:
Oxford Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK Mathematics Applications Consortium for Science and Industry, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland
I. Hewitt
Affiliation:
Oxford Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, University of Oxford, Oxford, OX2 6GG, UK
H. Sevestre
Affiliation:
School of Geography and Sustainable Development, University of St. Andrews, St. Andrews, KY16 9AL, UK
*
Author for correspondence: D. I. Benn, E-mail: dib2@st-andrews.ac.uk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We present the first general theory of glacier surging that includes both temperate and polythermal glacier surges, based on coupled mass and enthalpy budgets. Enthalpy (in the form of thermal energy and water) is gained at the glacier bed from geothermal heating plus frictional heating (expenditure of potential energy) as a consequence of ice flow. Enthalpy losses occur by conduction and loss of meltwater from the system. Because enthalpy directly impacts flow speeds, mass and enthalpy budgets must simultaneously balance if a glacier is to maintain a steady flow. If not, glaciers undergo out-of-phase mass and enthalpy cycles, manifest as quiescent and surge phases. We illustrate the theory using a lumped element model, which parameterizes key thermodynamic and hydrological processes, including surface-to-bed drainage and distributed and channelized drainage systems. Model output exhibits many of the observed characteristics of polythermal and temperate glacier surges, including the association of surging behaviour with particular combinations of climate (precipitation, temperature), geometry (length, slope) and bed properties (hydraulic conductivity). Enthalpy balance theory explains a broad spectrum of observed surging behaviour in a single framework, and offers an answer to the wider question of why the majority of glaciers do not surge.

Information

Type
Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Global-scale associations between surge-type glaciers and geometric and climatic variables. Circles show the number of surge-type (magenta) and non-surge-type (grey) glaciers per ERA-I cell. (a) Three-way plot of ERA-I mean annual temperature, annual precipitation and mean glacier length. (b) Mean glacier length vs precipitation. (c) Mean glacier length vs temperature. (d) Temperature vs precipitation, showing the location of Variegated Glacier (Alaska), Trapridge Glacier (Yukon), Bakaninbreen (Svalbard) and Otto Glacier (Ellesmere Island, Canada).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Geometry of the lumped model, showing enthalpy sources (red) and sinks (blue). w is the depth of basal water and d is the thickness of the basal zone for which enthalpy is calculated. See text for other definitions.

Figure 2

Table 1. Default parameter values, scales and dimensionless parameters

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Phase portrait of enthalpy E and ice thickness H, for three values of accumulation. The black line is the E-nullcline, on which dE/dt = 0, and the blue lines are the H-nullclines on which dH/dt = 0, with $\hat{T}_{\rm a}$ = −0.8, and $\dot{a}$ = 0.23 (A), 0.4 (B) and 0.7 (C). Case B corresponds to Figure 4. The enthalpy and ice thickness scales are normalized with respect to reference values E0 = 1.8 × 108 J m−2 and H0 = 200 m.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. An example solution of the model in a surging regime, corresponding to case B in Figure 3. Background arrows indicate the trajectory of E and H in the parameter space.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. The effect of changing parameters on the phase plane. The dotted lines show the default nullclines, with associated arrows showing the direction of trajectories. Solid lines show the effect of varying the given parameter. (a) Doubling accumulation; (b) doubling the difference between air temperature and the melting point; (c) doubling bed slope; (d) doubling glacier length.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Modelled surging regime (grey) as a function of accumulation and air temperature. (A), (B) and (C) correspond to the cases shown in Figure 3. The dashed lines bound the possible parameter space: the empty region top left is where $\dot{m} \gt \dot{a}$, so glaciers cannot occur, and the empty region bottom right denotes humid–cold climate combinations that do not occur in nature.

Figure 7

Fig. 7. (a) Surging regime for default parameters (grey), double the length (red) and half the slope (blue). (b) Surging regime for default parameters (grey), reducing the hydraulic conductivity constant $\widetilde{{K\;}}$ to 10% of its default value (red), and increasing $\tilde{K}$ tenfold (blue).

Figure 8

Fig. 8. The parameter regime in which oscillatory (surging) states occur for fixed climate variables, Ta = −0.8, $\dot{a}$ = 0.4, and variable length and slope, with examples of the phase plane for the parameter values indicated by blue dots.

Figure 9

Fig. 9. The effect of including crevasse-activated surface meltwater routing, with default parameter values shown in Table1, $\hat{T}_{\rm a} = -0.8$, $\hat{a} = 0.3$, u1 = 0 and u2 – 100 m a−1. (a) No surface meltwater input, exhibiting an unstable steady state. (b) The same input parameters as (a) but with the β(u) function activated, exhibiting a stable steady state. In this case, crevasses are opened by sliding, allowing larger water inputs to the bed, which sustain rapid sliding. The noticeable kink near the top of the E-nullcline (black line) corresponds to where u = u2. Background shading indicates the ice speed u.

Figure 10

Fig. 10. Example solutions exhibiting oscillatory behaviour with the β(u) function off (a–l), and on (m–x). Same input parameter values as in Figure 9, but with $\hat{a} = 0.3,$u1 = 10 m a−1 and u2 = 100 m a−1. Panels d–f, j–l, p–r and v–x show detail in the grey-shaded zones in panels a–c, g–i, m–o and s–u, respectively. Panels g–l and s–x show the effective pressure N (with ice pressure in black, which provides a cap on N); enthalpy fluxes Q (black is the sum of all heat sources minus conductive cooling, red is subglacial discharge); and a breakdown of heat sources (black is frictional heating, red is geothermal minus conductive cooling and is negative when shown dashed, blue is surface water penetration). Note different scales in some cases (the fluxes are larger when surface water is included).

Figure 11

Fig. 11. (a): Surging regime for the default parameters with the β(u) function activated, allowing surface meltwater to penetrate to the bed via crevasses. (b): Surging regime for default parameters (grey), double the length (pink) and half the slope (blue), with the β(u) function activated.

Figure 12

Fig. 12. An example solution of a run with the β(u) function activated and the two-component drainage model, showing variations in H, E, u, S, N and Q. On the Q plot, the red line shows the total water discharge (distributed and channelized) and the black line shows the combination of all water inputs (geothermal and frictional melting, surface-to-bed drainage, minus conductive cooling). The second and fourth columns show the inset regions in more detail.

Figure 13

Fig. 13. Example output from the two-component drainage model, using the same parameters as in Figure 10, but with u2 = 0 (i.e. all surface melt always penetrates to the bed. This displays rapid oscillations of channel size and basal water storage, but ice thickness is almost constant and velocity remains small. Cycle period (~5 years in the example shown) varies with the choice of input parameters and is of no particular significance.