Effects of basal debris on glacier flow

Science

Volumn 301, Issue 5629, 2003, Pages 81-84

  Iverson, Neal R ^a   Cohen, Denis ^b   Hooyer, Thomas S ^c   Fischer, Urs H ^d   Jackson, Hiriam ^e   Moore, Peter L ^a   Lappegard, Gaute ^f   Kohler, Jack ^g  

^a IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^d ETH ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^e NORWEGIAN WATER RESOURCES AND ENERGY DIRECTORATE   (Norway)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OSLO   (Norway)

^g NORWEGIAN POLAR INSTITUTE   (Norway)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DEBRIS; FLOW OF FLUIDS; POROSITY; WATER;

GLACIER FLOW;

GLACIERS;

WATER;

BASAL FLOW; GLACIAL DEBRIS; GLACIER FLOW; PORE PRESSURE; POREWATER; SHEAR; SLIP;

ARTICLE; FLOW KINETICS; GLACIER; NORWAY; PRESSURE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SHEAR FLOW; SHEAR STRESS; WATER FLOW;

EID: 0037710595     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1083086     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. G. K. C. Clarke, S. J. Marshall, C. Hillaire-Marcel, G. Bilodeau, C. Velga-Pires, in Mechanisms of Global Climate Change at Millennial Time Scales, P. U. Clark, R. S. Webb, L D. Keigwin, Eds. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 1999), pp. 243-262.
2. D. R. MacAyeal, Nature 359, 29 (1992).
3. P. U. Clark, R. A. Alley, D. Pollard, Science 286, 1104 (1999).
4. W. S. B. Paterson, The Physics of Glaciers (Pergamon, Oxford, ed. 3, 1994).
5. G. S. Boulton, in Ice Ages: Ancient and Modern, A. E. Wright, F. Moseley, Eds. (Seel House, Liverpool, 1975), pp. 7-42.
6. B. Hallet, Ann. Glaciol. 2, 23 (1981).
7. E. M. Shoemaker, J. Glaciol. 34, 259 (1988).
8. N. R. Iverson, J. Glaciol. 45, 41 (1999).
9. B. Kamb, in The West Antarctic Ice Sheet: Behavior and Environment, R. A. Alley, R. A. Bindschadler, Eds. (American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, 2001), pp. 157-159.
10. G. S. Boulton, R. C. A. Hindmarsh, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 9059 (1987).
11. D. Cohen, R. LeB. Hooke, N. R. Iverson, J. Kohler, J. Glaciol. 46, 599 (2000).
12. Materials and methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
13. Inspection and testing of the panel at the conclusions of experiments yielded no indication that high shear tractions resulted from panel malfunction. The panel design ensured that debris had access to only the upper surface of the rock tablet and not to its edges (12).
14. -11) (4).
15. s is the friction coefficient for slip within the sediment and c is cohesion (29). For the dominantly coarse grain sizes sampled in the basel ice would be negligible and μ would be > 0.2 (29), larger than the measured friction coefficient of 0.05.
16. 2).
17. W. F. Budd, P. L. Kleage, N. A. Blundy, J. Glaciol. 23, 157 (1979).
18. Basal melt rates were one to two orders of magnitude higher than those expected from geothermal and frictional heat on flow-parallel bed surfaces. However, basal melt rates were comparable in magnitude to the bed-normal component of ice velocity on up-glacier facing bed surfaces, where ice converges with the bed during slip and debris-bed friction is thought to be optimized (6). Rates of ice motion toward the tablet were, thus, within the range of values expected at glacier beds.
19. E. M. Morris, J. Glaciol. 23, 117 (1979).
20. L. D. Drake, R. L. Shreve, Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 332, 51 (1973).
21. U. H. Fischer, G. K. C. Clarke, Ann. Glaciol. 24, 390 (1997).
22. N. R. Iverson, R. W. Baker, R. LeB. Hooke, B. Hanson, P. Jansson, J. Glaciol. 45, 31 (1999).
23. An alternative interpretation, applied to tiltmeter data collected elsewhere through boreholes, is that up-glacier tiltmeter rotation resulted from bed-normal expansion of till during increasing water pressure (decreasing effective normal stress) (30). This interpretation is untenable, in this case, because tiltmeters commonly rotated up-glacier during periods when water pressure was decreasing or steady (Fig. 3).
24. N. E. Brown, B. Hallet, D. B. Booth, J. Geophys. Res. 92, 8985 (1987).
25. Longitudinal and lateral stress gradients in the ice adjacent to the wedge must have inhibited or eliminated increases in the speed of ice above the wedge when pore-water pressure was increased. However, an increase in ice speed would not have affected the partitioning of motion between slip at the till surface and till shear, because both slip resistance, which derives primarily from resistance to particle plowing through the till surface, and till shearing resistance are insensitive to ice speed (8, 30).
26. P. U. Clark, J. H, Licciardi, D. R. MacAyeal, J. W. Jenson, Geology. 24, 679 (1996).
27. S. Tulaczylc, B. Kamb, H. F. Engelhardt, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 483 (2000).
28. A. C. Fowler, T. Murray, F. S. L Ng, J. Glaciol. 47, 527 (2001).
29. T. W. Lambe, R. V. Whitman, Soil Mechanics (Wiley, New York, 1969).
30. S. Tulaczyk, B. Kamb, H. F. Engelhardt, J. Geophys. Res. 105, 463 (2000).
31. Supported by a grant from NSF (OPP-9911559). We thank the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate for providing access to their facilities.