Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T00:34:38.747Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Why do the dark and light ogives of Forbes bands have similar surface mass balances?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2018

C. VINCENT*
Affiliation:
University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, 38000 Grenoble, France
M. DUMONT
Affiliation:
Météo-France CNRS, CNRM/CEN UMR 3589, Météo-France, CNRS, Grenoble, France
D. SIX
Affiliation:
University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, 38000 Grenoble, France
F. BRUN
Affiliation:
University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, 38000 Grenoble, France
G. PICARD
Affiliation:
University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, 38000 Grenoble, France
L. ARNAUD
Affiliation:
University Grenoble Alpes, CNRS, IRD, Grenoble INP, IGE, 38000 Grenoble, France
*
Correspondence: C. Vincent <christian.vincent@univ-grenoble-alpes.fr>
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Band ogives are a striking and enigmatic feature of Mer de Glace glacier flow. The surface mass balances (SMBs) of these ogives have been thoroughly investigated over a period of 12 years. We find similar cumulative SMBs over this period, ranging between −64.1 and −66.2 m w.e., on the dark and light ogives even though the dark ogive albedo is ~40% lower than that of the light ogives. We, therefore, looked for another process that could compensate for the large difference of absorbed short-wave radiation between dark and light ogives. Based on in situ roughness measurements, our numerical modeling experiments demonstrate that a significant difference in turbulent flux over the dark and light ogives due to different surface roughnesses could compensate for the difference in radiative forcing. Our results discard theories for the genesis of band ogives that are based on the assumption of a strong ice ablation contrast between dark and light ogives. More generally, our study demonstrates that future roughness changes are as important to analyze as the radiative impacts of a potential increase of aerosols or debris at the surface of glaciers.

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) 2018
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Map of Tacul glacier located downstream from the icefall. The ablation stakes set up in dark and light band ogives are indicated in red. Some crevasses located at the foot of the icefall can be seen at the bottom of the figure. The image is from a 2008 orthophoto (Régie de Gestion des Données 73–74). The contour interval is 10 m.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Pictures of Forbes bands at the Mer de Glace glacier (2004). In the image on the right, the glacier flows from right to left.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Dark (left) and light (right) ogives. The stakes are 2 m long (Photo C. Vincent, 2016).

Figure 3

Fig. 4. Cumulative surface mass balances measured for the six ablation stakes set up in dark and light ogives over 2004–15.

Figure 4

Fig. 5. Top: Summary of all the measured albedo values recorded for the light (deep and light blue lines) and the dark (black and grey lines) ogives. The sky conditions are indicated by the different colors. The thick blue and sand lines correspond to the mean spectra for the light and dark ogives. Bottom: The spectral Std dev. of the measured spectra for the dark (sand line) and the light (blue line) ogives.

Figure 5

Fig. 6. DEMs determined on light (left) and dark (right) bands using photogrammetric measurements. The contour interval is 0.01 m. The elevation scales are identical. The ground control points are shown in red. Note the ablation stakes (2 cm diameter) shown on the left side of each figure.

Figure 6

Fig. 7. Cross sections through the light (left) and dark (right) ogives. Note that the vertical axis scales are the same. The red line corresponds to the zero mean across the profile over the length used in Eqn 2.

Figure 7

Fig. 8. Cross sections measured on light (blue) and dark (black) ogives using DGPS measurements. Note that the vertical axes have the same scales.

Figure 8

Fig. 9. Simulated (solid and dashed lines) and observed surface mass balances (markers). The only difference in the Crocus set-up between the black and the blue lines is the ice albedo.

Figure 9

Fig. 10. Simulated versus measured mass balance (m w.e.) for the light ogives (upper panel, blue dots corresponds to the simulations with z0 = 0.41 mm and green dots to the simulation with z0 = 4.0 mm) and the black ogives (lower panel, simulations with z0 = 0.41 mm). Each dot corresponds to the mass balance at one stake between two consecutive measurement dates shown on Figure 9. For each simulation, bias and RMSE are also indicated on figure.

Figure 10

Fig. 11. Mean simulated energy balance for 1 June to 1 November of each year (2007–15 average). The different terms of the surface energy balance (SEB, sum of the four following terms) are the sensible (H), and latent (LE) heat fluxes, the net longwave radiation (downward-upward, LWnet) and the net shortwave radiation (SWnet). The gray bars correspond to the value simulated for the dark ogives with z0 = 0.41 mm, the light blue bars to the values simulated for the light ogives with z0 = 0.41 mm and the dark blue bars to the value simulated for the light ogives with z0 = 4.0 mm.

Supplementary material: File

Vincent et al. supplementary material

Vincent et al. supplementary material 1

Download Vincent et al. supplementary material(File)
File 7.8 MB