Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T07:13:59.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dynamics of crystal formation in the Greenland NorthGRIP ice core

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Joachim Mathiesen
Affiliation:
The Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Jesper Ferkinghoff-Borg
Affiliation:
The Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Mogens H. Jensen
Affiliation:
The Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Mogens Levinsen
Affiliation:
The Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Poul Olesen
Affiliation:
The Niels Bohr Institute, Blegdamsvej 17, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen
Affiliation:
Department of Geophysics, Niels Bohr Institute for Astronomy, Geophysics, and Physics, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark E-mail: as@gfy.ku.dk
Anders Svensson
Affiliation:
Department of Geophysics, Niels Bohr Institute for Astronomy, Geophysics, and Physics, Juliane Maries Vej 30, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark E-mail: as@gfy.ku.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The North Greenland Icecore Project (NorthGRIP) palaeoclimatic information back to about 120 kyr BP. The size distributions of ice crystals in the upper 880 m of the NorthGRIP ice core, which cover a time-span of approximately 5300 years, have been obtained previously. The distributions evolve towards a universal curve, indicating a common underlying physical process in the formation of crystals. We identify this process as an interplay between fragmentation of the crystals and diffusion of their grain boundaries. The process is described by a two-parameter differential equation to which we obtain the exact solution. The solution is in excellent agreement with the measured distributions.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2004
Figure 0

Fig. 1. An image of a 10 × 10 cm2 vertical thin section of ice from 115 m depth. The section is viewed between two crossed linear polarizers, and the different colours represent almost 3000 individual crystals with various orientations of the crystal optical c axes. The inset shows an example of the bounding box used when estimating the crystal size.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Distributions of ice crystal sizes at depths115, 165, 220, 330, 440 and 605 m. The crystal size is defined as the maximum vertical extent of the individual crystals. The black lines are the measured histograms, and the smooth grey lines are the temporal evolution predicted by Equation (2) starting directly from the distribution observed at 115 m. Note that already at 165 m depth, only a few of the terms in Equation (6) remain, leading to a smooth shape of the predicted distribution. The total number of ice crystals decreases with depth (due to the overall increase in sizes) until the steady state is reached.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. The mean vertical size of the ice crystals shown vs their age in years BP. The smooth line shows the best fit predicfrom our dynamical description of ice crystal growt From the fit we read off the diffusion constant, D ≈ 1.4 × 10-3 mm2 a-1, and fragmentation rate, f ≈ 5.2 × 10-4 a-1 mm-1.

Figure 3

Fig. 4. The figure shows a “data collapse” of the size distributions as a consequence of a rescaling, i.e. the distributions shown have zero mean and unit standard deviation. The lines correspond to the distribution used in the eight data points in Figure 3 of the oldest samples (t >2500 years).The black line on top is the steady-state solution of Equation (2).We use the rescaling in order to improve the resolution around the smallest crystal sizes and note that the steady-state solution is transformed accordingly.