Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-z2ts4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T00:40:17.774Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A numerical investigation of ice-lobe–permafrost interaction around the southern Laurentide ice sheet

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 September 2017

Paul M. Cutler
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1490, U.S.A.
Douglas R. MacAyeal
Affiliation:
Department of Geophysical Sciences, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637, U.S.A.
David M. Mickelson
Affiliation:
Department of Geology and Geophysics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, Wisconsin 53706-1490, U.S.A.
Byron R. Parizek
Affiliation:
Department of Geosciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802-7501, U.S.A.
Patrick M. Colgan
Affiliation:
Department of Geology, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts 02115, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Permafrost existed around and under marginal parts of the southern Laurentide ice sheet during the Last Glacial Maximum. The presence of permafrost was important in determining the extent, form and dynamics of ice lobes and the landforms they produced because of influences on resistance to basal motion and subglacial hydrology. We develop a two-dimensional time-dependent model of permafrost and glacier-ice dynamics along a flowline to examine: (i) the extent to which permafrost survives under an advancing ice lobe and how it influences landform development and hydrology, and (ii) the influence of permafrost on ice motion and surface profile. The model is applied to the Green Bay lobe, which terminated near Madison, Wisconsin, during the Last Glacial Maximum. Simulations of ice advance over permafrost indicate that the bed upstream of the ice-sheet margin was frozen for 60–200 km at the glacial maximum. Permafrost remained for centuries to a few thousand years under advancing ice, and penetrated sufficiently deep (tens of meters) into the underlying aquifer that drainage of basal meltwater became inefficient, likely resulting in water storage beneath the glacier. Our results highlight the influence of permafrost on subglacial conditions, even though uncertainties in boundary conditions such as climate exist.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 2000
Figure 0

Fig. 1. Location of the Green Bay lobe in the southern LIS. D marks the local ice dome; the lines passing through this point are ice divides. Dashed line indicates path of the modeled flowline. C, Chippewa lobe; W, Wisconsin Valley lobe; L, Langlade lobe. The solid grey area represents land beyond the late-Wisconsinan ice limit. Areas with diagonal grey stripes are soft-bedded. Following Hicock and others (1989), a belt of carbonate till on the Shield is considered soft (unbounded diagonal grey stripes immediately north of Lake Superior. Sources: Dyke and Prest (1987)Attig and others (1989); Hicock and others (1989); Johnson and others (1992); Jenson and others (1996); Licciardi and others (1998).

Figure 1

Table 1. Notation, parameter values and units

Figure 2

Fig. 2. Distribution of mass balance with elevation in Greenland and Antarctica (Boulton and others, 1984) compared with simulated distributions for the Lake Michigan lobe (Jenson and others, 1996) and the Green Bay lobe (this paper). The Green Bay lobe mass-balance curve is a snapshot of conditions after 30 kyr in a run with steady air temperature. Adapted from Jenson and others (1996).

Figure 3

Fig. 3. Idealized temperature variation at Madison, Wisconsin, 55–21 kyr BP (see text for details).

Figure 4

Table 2. Parameter values in steady-climate runs

Figure 5

Table 3. Parameter values in variable-climate runs

Figure 6

Fig. 4. Cross-section of an ice lobe advancing over permafrost. North is to the left. Isotherms indicate ice temperature. The glacier bed is shaded grey. Permafrost within the bed is shaded black. Small black squares indicate nodes that are at the pressure-melting point. The extent of the frozen zone under the ice is measured from the terminus to the point where the bed is first at the melting point. Small circles indicate nodes where sliding could take place if B>0 in Equation (1). Madison (“Mad”) is located at 1260 km along the flowline. H–S is the hard-to-soft bed transition, and S–H is the soft-to-hard bed transition

Figure 7

Fig. 5. Variation of (a) ice extent, (b) maximum permafrost depth in the southern aquifer (Fig. 4) and (c) frozen-zone width for runs 1–3 (Table 2). Note that maximum permafrost depth (b) may vary in space as ice advances over frozen ground. Note also that frozen-zone width (c) is measured from the terminus to the subglacial location where unfrozen ground first appears. In (a) the thin horizontal line marked “S–H” is the position of the soft-to-hard bed transition, the line marked “H–S” is the position of the hard-to-soft bed transition, and the line marked “Mad” is the position of Madison. Run 1 has a geothermal heat flux of 0.04 W m −2, compared to 0.035 W m−2 in run 2 and 0.045 W m−2 in run 3.

Figure 8

Fig. 6. Variation of (a) ice extent, (b) maximum permafrost depth in the southern aquifer, and (c) frozen-zone width, for runs 1 and 4 (Table 2). In run 1, the standard deviation of daily temperature variation, σ, is 5°C, compared to σ = 6°C in run 4.

Figure 9

Fig. 7 Variation of (a) ice extent, (b) maximum permafrost depth in the southern aquifer, and (c) frozen-zone width for runs 1, 5 and 6 (Table 2). The influence of precipitation is tested: P = 0.5 m a−1 in run 5, 0.6 m a−1 in run 1 and 0.7 m a−3 in run 6.

Figure 10

Fig. 8. Variation of (a) maximum permafrost depth in the southern aquifer, and (b) frozen-zone width, for runs 1, 10 and 11 (Table 2). Sensitivity to aquifer porosity is tested: porosity is 0.2 in run 1, 0.1 in run 10 and 0.0 in run 11.

Figure 11

Fig. 9. Evolution of the cross-sectional profile (including bed elevation ) of an ice lobe from 55 to 21 kyr BP with (a) zero sliding (run 12) and (b) sliding over unfrozen soft-bedded areas (run 13). In (b), the value of B (Equation (1)) is 2 × 10−3 m a−1 Pa−1. Times of the snapshots, working from left to right, are 48, 41, 38, 35, 31, 27, 23 and 21 kyr BP. In both panels, profiles are initially ice-free at 55 kyr BP. In (a) a small snowpatch forms at the terminus between 23 and 21 kyr BP: the result of southern progression of the equilibrium line outpacing ice advance.

Figure 12

Fig. 10. Variation of (a) ice extent, (b) maximum permafrost depth in the southern aquifer, and (c) frozen-zone width, for runs 12–14 (Table 3). Also shown in (a) is the area of bed that is frozen in run 13 (thin dotted line that descends between 43 and 30 kyr BP). Sensitivity to the sliding constant, B (Equation (1)), is tested. The value of B over unfrozen soft-bedded areas is zero in run 12, 2 × 10−3 m a−1 Pa−1 in run 13, and 5 × 10−3 m a−1 Pa−1 in run 14.

Figure 13

Fig. 11. Variation of (a) ice extent, (b) maximum permafrost depth in the southern aquifer, and (c) frozen-zone width, for runs 16–18 (Table 3). Initial ice extent in all three runs is 275 km, compared with zero for runs in Figure 10. σ = 6°C in run 17, compared to 5°C in run 16, and P = 0.55 m a−1 in run 18, compared to 0.6 m a−1 in run 16.