Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms
Transcript of Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms
![Page 1: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms
Bernard HalletESS [email protected]
ESS 431 & 505, Wed. 16 Nov 2016
![Page 2: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Continuing with glacial erosion…
• Insights into quarrying, as well as chemical dimensions of glacial erosion
• Rates of erosion• Checking aspects of theory• Products of erosion from mm-scale striae, to
glacial valleys, to beveled mountain ranges• Sediments and their influence on ice masses
![Page 3: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Asymmetry of exfoliating granite domes
R. Jahns (1943) recognized that more was missing from quarried side.
ICE FLOW
Cl-36 concentration
15 ka70 ka ~ 1m
Briner and Swanson, 1998
Quarrying rate
�
> 3m2x103 yrs
=1.5mmyr
�
< 0.3m2x103 yrs
= 0.15mmyr
Abrasion rate
Relative importance of abrasion and quarrying
![Page 4: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
QuarryingInsights from
Grinnell Glacier
Work in subglacial
cavities in early 1980s
2002courtesy F. Ng
![Page 5: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Looking upglacier under 10-20m of ice at Grinnell Glacier
![Page 6: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Measuring ice speed with circular saw cantilevered against ice roof under 10-20m of ice at Grinnell Glacier
![Page 7: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Extensive cavities under 10-20m of ice at Grinnell Glacier
![Page 8: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Pressure sensors under 10-20m of ice at Grinnell
Glacier: before and after (note abrasion shadows)
![Page 9: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Cavitation, stress concentration and quarrying (from Y. Merrand)
![Page 10: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Idealization of glacier bed geometry in
quarrying model(Hallet, 1996)
![Page 11: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Left: ice pressure on ledge edgesBelow: calculated rate of quarrying (plucking)
Quarrying model results
![Page 12: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Quarrying model results from Yann Merrand
![Page 13: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Quarrying model results from Yann Merrand
dPe axis represents the magnitude of effective pressure variations
![Page 14: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Checking aspects of theory under glaciersField site: tunnel system beneath Engabreen, Norway
Workshop on Glacial Erosion Modelling, 29 April – 1 May 2010 3
Under 210 m of ice at Engabreen, Norway Sketch courtesy of Cohen and Iverson
![Page 15: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Field evidence for water pressure transients increasing rates of quarrying
Cohen, D., T. S. Hooyer, N. R. Iverson, J. F. Thomason, and M. Jackson (2006), Role of transient water pressure in quarrying: A subglacial experiment using acoustic emissions, J.
Geophys. Res., 111, F03006, doi:10.1029/2005JF000439.Hypothesis: decreasing water pressure promotes crack growth
Hypothesis: decreasing water pressure promotes crack growth
P
i
P +�P
i
P ~P
w i
P <<P
w i
Slow or no crack growth
Enhanced crack growth
Ice flow
Workshop on Glacial Erosion Modelling, 29 April – 1 May 2010 1
![Page 16: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Experimental setup
AE sensor (1 of 8)2 water-pressuretransducers
point-gauge
upstream load cell
load cell under step
initial crack
water outlet
Ice flow
Panel
Table
5 m
Tunnel
Scaffold
Rock
0.6 m
>200 m
of ice
Concrete
Workshop on Glacial Erosion Modelling, 29 April – 1 May 2010 2
![Page 17: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Pump test experiment
11109Hours on 3 April 2004
Waterpressure(kPa)
AEactivity
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Water pressureAE hits
(1) End of pumping (2) Water pressure decrease (3) Closure of lee cavity
Ice flow
Workshop on Glacial Erosion Modelling, 29 April – 1 May 2010 4
![Page 18: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Location of acoustic emissions
x, position along flow direction (cm)
z,verticalposition
(cm)
20 25 30 35 400
5
10
15
20
25Days in 2004
94.59493.59392.59291.5
Rock step Panel
IcePreexisting crack
Approx. positionof fracture
31 March
3 April
1 April
2 April
x, position along flow direction (cm)
z,verticalposition
(cm)
20 25 30 35 400
5
10
15
20
25Days in 2004
94.59493.59392.59291.5
Rock step Panel
IcePreexisting crack
Approx. positionof fracture
31 March
3 April
1 April
2 April
x, position along flow direction (cm)
z,verticalposition
(cm)
20 25 30 35 400
5
10
15
20
25Days in 2004
94.59493.59392.59291.5
Rock step Panel
IcePreexisting crack
Approx. positionof fracture
31 March
3 April
1 April
2 April
Quarried surface
initial shape
Workshop on Glacial Erosion Modelling, 29 April – 1 May 2010 7
![Page 19: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Cohen and Iverson’s
ConclusionsSummary
• Pre-existing crack in bedrock step grew in response to water-pressure fluctuations
• Rates of crack growth measured using acoustic emissions were highest during
periods of decreasing water pressure (increasing e↵ective pressure)
• Water pressure transients may be associated with periods of high water pressure
during which water cavities are largest and sliding speed is high. This may explain
why rates of erosion have been observed to depend on sliding speed.
• Ultimately, rates of quarrying may depend on the magnitude and frequency of
stress changes on the bed caused by water pressure fluctuations
Workshop on Glacial Erosion Modelling, 29 April – 1 May 2010 8
![Page 20: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Looking upglacier at striated bedrock, Tyndall Glacier. Note sharp fractures and missing blocks
![Page 21: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
ttp://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/alps/rhonegletscher/gletscherschliffe_2007-en.html?id=0
![Page 22: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Deeply striated stoss surface
http://www.swisseduc.ch/glaciers/alps/rhonegletscher/gletscherschliffe_2007-en.html?id=2
![Page 23: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Sliding over small bumps is dominated by regelation, which involves melting/freezing, and water flow in thin basal film. Solutes that are rejected during the freezing process can exceed saturation, causing chemical precipitation.
Sliding physics (regelation) & suglacial chemical processes
![Page 24: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Calcium carbonate spicules point in ice flow direction, reflecting intimate regelation ice/rock contact, Tsanfleuron
Glacier, Swiss Alps.
![Page 25: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
Subglacial carbonate precipitatesTierra del Fuego, from J. Rebassa
Or post glacial stromatolites?
![Page 26: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Proglacial area at Blackfoot Glacier, Montana, that was deglaciated decades ago, looking downglacier
![Page 27: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Blackfoot (Montana)
& Castleguard
(Alberta)Glaciers
Former subglacial cavity systems criss-cross white domains, color coded with precipitates that reflect intimate contact between ice and rock.
![Page 28: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Work in subglacial
cavities in early 1980s
2002courtesy F. Ng
Looking under glaciers
Grinnell Glacier
![Page 29: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Grinnell Glacier, Montana, 1-2 yrs, ~15-30 m of ice motion under ~20 m of ice. Note small particle made it under the sides of bolt and striated the transducer plate.
![Page 30: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Laser profile of striation in stainless steel
![Page 31: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Toothpaste-like ice at Glacier d’Argentière, France
![Page 32: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
![Page 33: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
Bondhusbreen, S. Norway
Subglacial sediment trap emptied annually
Big boulder in subglacial stream, Argentiere
![Page 34: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
500 ft-thick, clean ice sliding over bare bedrock, Bondhusbreen
![Page 35: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
Ice sliding over bed bump under 150-200m of ice at Bondhusbreen, Norway
![Page 36: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
Forces on Rock Tools
![Page 37: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
Pressure field around boulder
![Page 38: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
Checking aspects of the abrasion model
From N. Iverson
![Page 39: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
Left: Heavily abraded (lighter color) stoss surface; erratic, scattered scratches on lee side suggest cavity collapse
Below: striae are parallel, consistent with scattered rocks entrained in linear ice motion; exceptional jog (lower left) suggest rock moving past one another
![Page 40: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
Ice is surprisingly fluid…and yet it can press rock fragment with sufficient force to scratch the rock
![Page 41: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
Products of erosion from mm-scale striations to glacial valleys ~100 km long
10 m
m
![Page 42: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
Chatter marks, arcuate cracks & lunate fractures: Sliding indentors
From B. Johnson dissertation, 1975 Rotating blocks
![Page 43: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
Chatter marks, arcuate cracks & lunate fractures
![Page 44: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
Lunate Fractures
![Page 45: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
Remaining challenges
What does this research on quarrying tell about erosion of real bedrock terrain (rock
masses with pervassive joints and fractures)?
How can we validate and test erosion models?
How about the rates of erosion?
![Page 46: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
http://gigapan.com/gigapans/176007
Where is the other half of the dome?
![Page 47: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
Globalerosion
rates
Antarctic Peninsula
High UpliftRates
MSRPatagonia
Columbia Glacier
![Page 48: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
Glacial Buzz saw
S.C. Porter
Equilibrium Line Altitude “ELA”
![Page 49: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
Glacial Buzzsaw history
• Steve Porter�s diagram (~1980s) used by M. Raymo• Brozovic et al. (1997) Himalayas are high because they
are in tropics• Mitchel & Montgomery (2006) Cascades• Egholm et al. (2009) Global compilation & modeling
![Page 50: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
What controls peak elevations in Cascades? Note great diversity of rock type, and amounts of precipitation
![Page 51: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
In a steady state, rock uplift rates must equal exhumation rates
Cascades: well defined cross-range variation in rates of exhumation/uplift
![Page 52: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
What controls peak elevations in Cascades? Surprisingly it is NOT the rock type, amounts of precipitation, or rate of exhumation/uplift.
![Page 53: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
Peak elevation in the Cascades closely parallel the �snow line�suggesting that they are curtailed by the Glacial Buzzsaw
Sara Mitchel�s doctoral research
![Page 54: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
DL Egholm et al. Nature 460, 884-887 (2009) doi:10.1038/nature08263
Maximum elevations and hypsometric
maxima elevations correlate with local snowline altitudes.
![Page 55: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
Near Polar Regions: Alpine topography at sea level, Lofotan Islands, Norway
![Page 56: Glacial Erosion II: Processes, Rates & Landforms](https://reader031.fdocuments.in/reader031/viewer/2022012517/61913a7b8d501f446154a0eb/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
Near the Equator, the World’s Highest Mountains, Mt Everest in center