Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-mmrw7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T19:15:36.676Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Interannual climate variability helps define the mean state of glaciers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 May 2019

ANDREW G.O. MALONE*
Affiliation:
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
ALICE M. DOUGHTY
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Bates College, Lewiston, ME, USA
DOUGLAS R. MACAYEAL
Affiliation:
Department of the Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA
*
Correspondence: Andrew G.O. Malone <amalone@uic.edu>
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Changes in glacier length and extent are indicators of contemporary and archives of past climate changes, but this common climate proxy presents a challenge for inferring a climate signal. Modeling studies suggest that length fluctuations can occur due to interannual climate variability within an unchanging mean climate and that changes in interannual climate variability can also drive changes in average length. This paper quantifies the impacts of interannual climate variability on average glacier length and mass balance, using a flowline model coupled to a simplified mass-balance model. Results illustrate that changes in the magnitude of interannual temperature variability can non-linearly affect the mean glacier length through a mass-balance asymmetry between warm and cold years. This asymmetry is present in models where melt only initiates after a temperature threshold is crossed. Glaciers susceptible to this asymmetry can be identified based on the shape of their mass-balance profiles. The presence of mass-balance asymmetries in glaciological databases is evaluated, but current records are too short for high statistical resolving power. While the asymmetry in this study can affect the average length and mass-balance, its impacts are small, and paleoclimate interpretations from glacier-length changes are likely not notably influenced by this process.

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 licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2019
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Mass-balance profiles representative of glaciers in maritime or tropical (steep), mid-latitude continental glacier (moderate), and cold and arid (shallow) regions, (b) mass-balance profile response to a warm year (vertical translation) and wet year (horizontal translation), and (c) mass-balance profile response to a warm and wet year (superposition of the two translations in (b)). The two gradients transition smoothly 100 m above the equilibrium line altitude (ELA).

Figure 1

Fig. 2. (a) Glacier-length fluctuations due to interannual variability for the steep mass-balance gradient glacier (top), moderate mass-balance gradient glacier (middle), and shallow mass-balance gradient glacier (bottom) and (b) distribution of glacier-length fluctuations for the transient simulations, including normal distributions (black lines) with the same magnitude of length fluctuations. Length anomalies are relative to the 3-km spin-up length. Dashed lines represent the average glacier lengths in (a) and the equilibrium glacier length for the spin-up mass-balance profile (mean climate) and the time-averaged mass-balance profile (mean of climate w/ variability) in (b). All three glaciers are forced by the same timing of interannual variability. Only the first 1000 years of the 10,100-year transient simulations are shown in (a), and the final 10000 years of the transient simulations are used for the histograms and statistics in (b). Results are shown for interannual temperature variability with a 1 − σ value of 0.5°C and interannual precipitation variability with a 1 − σ value of 0.5 m w.e. a−1.

Figure 2

Table 1. Transient and average glacier-length response to air-temperature and/or precipitation interannual variability: σT = 0.5°C and/or σP = 0.5 m w.e a−1

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Upslope retreat due to the addition of different magnitudes of interannual temperature variability for the steep mass-balance gradient glacier (top), moderate mass-balance gradient glacier (middle) and shallow mass-balance gradient glacier (bottom). Quadratic models relating upslope retreat and the magnitude of interannual variability are included.

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Mass-balance response to different signs and magnitudes of air temperature anomalies. The vertical displacements in the profile are symmetric to warm and cold anomalies, as prescribed by the methods, but the glacier-wide mass-balance response is asymmetric.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. Distribution of mass-balance anomalies for the steep mass-balance gradient glacier (top), moderate mass-balance gradient glacier (middle) and shallow mass-balance gradient glacier (bottom). Normal distributions (black curves) with the same 1 − σ values as the mass-balance times series (σb) are included. Statistics on the shape of the distribution are also included. The interannual variability is the same as in Fig. 2.

Figure 6

Table 2. Frequency at which synthetic mass-balance records are statistically indistinguishable from a normal distribution (p ≥ 0.05) by a Jarque-Bera test (same interannual variability as in Fig. 2)