Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-kl59c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-19T04:39:10.477Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Short-term variations in calving of a tidewater glacier: LeConte Glacier, Alaska, U.S.A.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Shad O’Neel
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7230, U.S.A. E-mail: shad@colorado.edu
Keith A. Echelmeyer
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7230, U.S.A. E-mail: shad@colorado.edu
Roman J. Motyka
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7230, U.S.A. E-mail: shad@colorado.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Knowledge of iceberg calving is important for understanding instabilities of tidewater glaciers and ice sheets. Since 1995 the terminus of LeConte Glacier, Alaska, U.S.A., has retreated about 2 km and the glacier has thinned approximately 120 m at its 1999 terminus position. Our focus is short-term (hours to weeks) variability of the frequency and magnitude of calving events and calving flux. Both photogrammetric and visual observations are employed in a temporal analysis over a several-week period. We combined these data with measurements of ice speed, tide level, surface water input and water-storage estimates in an attempt to better understand the calving process. Contrary to results obtained over longer time-scales on other glaciers, our results show no correlation between ice speed and the frequency of calving. However, calving events do not appear to occur randomly; often they are a response to measurable changes in other parameters within the terminus region. Caclving can often be attributed to buoyancy perturbations and possibly flexure of the nearly floating terminus. Given the multiple possibilities for buoyancy perturbations, we have found no simple relationship between any specific forcing parameter and calving at short time-scales.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2003
Figure 0

Fig. 1. (a) Map of southeast Alaska showing location of LeConte Glacier. (b) Terminus region of LeConte Glacier. Map shows the lower glacier in white, bedrock in light grey and ocean in dark grey. The longitudinal coordinate system {0:ξ:9} is shown with +’s; the location of the 1994 terminus (ξ = 9), the location of the May 1999 terminus (ξ = 7), the survey camp “Lake”and center-line markers A–G (●), Bend and Gate (▴) are also shown.

Figure 1

Fig. 2. Detail of glacier terminus. (a) Cross-section of the terminus, looking down-fjord. Estimates of fjord geometry and ice thickness as measured approximately 200 m down-fjord from the terminus. (b) Transverse velocity profile markers.The arrow shows the location of the cross-section shown in (a). A gap exists between the ice and margin.

Figure 2

Fig. 3. Model of calving terminus (modified from Motyka and others, 2003).The position and volume of the terminus (dV /dt; below dashed vertical line) is determined by the ice flux into the terminus (Qin) and calving (Qc), which includes melting at the face.The terminus with effective thickness H is near flotation in water of average depth Dw perturbed by tideT. Longitudinal stretching increases downstream until about one ice thickness from the terminus (dotted line).Tides and hydraulic transients can reduce effective basal pressure and flex the terminus. Subaerial ice cliffs can collapse, creating an ice toe (1), and cause instability of submarine face. At times, submarine melting can undercut the face (2), leading to instability of the subaerial face.

Figure 3

Table 1. The times of the 12 largest calving events observed during the study are listed with their respective magnitudes on a scale ranging from 1 to 10. Tide stage is given in parentheses

Figure 4

Fig. 4. Visual calving data, constructed by summing the subjective calving-event magnitudes over 24 hour periods.

Figure 5

Fig. 5. The top two panels display the ice flux in (Qin). (a) Small variations in ice flux at an expanded scale. (b) Ice flux at the same scale as (c) and (d). (c) Volume changes at the terminus, dV /dt. (d) Calving flux; the difference between Qin and dV /dt. An error bar in each panel gives the average error, bold lines show daily averages, and the grey line in (d) is a 5 day average calving flux.

Figure 6

Fig. 6. Longitudinal strain rates between markers as a function of time. Two-day averaged calving flux is shown with a bold line, and 2 day averaged strain rates between markers are shown with thin lines, indicating that there is no correlation between the two time series at the temporal and spatial scale of our work.

Figure 7

Table 2. Harmonic analysis of diurnal forcing for the tide, ablation, marker B* and calving

Figure 8

Fig. 7. The vertical motion of marker B* (thin line; errors ∼6 cm) and the calving flux (bold line) are shown. Six calving events appear to be the result of surface uplift events as marked with dotted lines.

Figure 9

Fig. 8. Vertical motion of marker A/A*. Massive calving events documented by visual observations are plotted with vertical dashed lines. Timing constraints suggest that calving events occur during or immediately after surface elevation drops.

Figure 10

Fig. 9. (a) Calving flux (bold line) and precipitation (thin line) as functions of time.While precipitation may sometimes be related to increases in calving, there is no direct link. (b) Qualitative water-storage index constructed using estimates of water input and output. Major calving events are shown as vertical lines.

Figure 11

Fig. 10. Correlation between calving and tidal amplitude: (a) visual calving record; (b) Qc