The extent of Suldenferner glacier

The Bottom Temperature of Snow cover (BTS) is defined as the temperature measured at the snow/ground interface (Haeberli 1973). This is different to Ground Surface Temperature (GST), which is measured in the ground (soil or rock) slightly below the surface. BTS measurement probes do not penetrate the ground and measure therefore the temperature of the lowermost snow rather than that of the ground.

The scope of BTS measurements is to assess the Winter Equilibrium Temperature (WEqT). The WEqT will depend i) on the presence/absence of permafrost, and ii) on the history of the snow pack on the measurement location. In presence of permafrost, the negative heat flux coming up from the cold frozen subsurface will lead to strongly negative WEqT (typically less than -2 °C), whereas on non-frozen soil, the WEqT will be close to 0 °C or moderately negative (Haeberli 1973). Thus the WEqT can be a good indicator of permafrost occurrence and can help to discriminate permafrost from non-permafrost areas, provided that the snow cover developed early in the winter and remained sufficient to isolate the soil surface from atmospheric influence.

From September 2013 – September 2014 I measured BTS on Suldenferner, using rugged HOBO water temperature Pro v2 combined sensor and dataloggers produced by Onset. Each sensor was placed under one flat rock to shield it from the sun, while true BST would be measured on top of the debris.

The figure below shows where the sensors were laid out on the ground, overlain on the surface lowering in the area measured by repeat airborne laser scans between Autumn 2013 and Autumn 2016, the glacier outline mapped from surface lowering and optical imagery for 2005. The numbered HOBO locations are those that I could recover in September 2014 – the others had gone missing from the glacier surface. The transparent yellow circles are an indication of the debris thickness found by digging to the glacier surface in August 2015, scaled between 3-67cm thick:

HOBO sensors 1, 2, maybe 3, and 9 are on areas binned as having between 0 and +5m of surface change. In the case of sensors 1-3, this zero or potentially slightly positive change is because these locations are higher up the glacier, towards, or within the accumulation zone over this interval. In the case of sensor 9 though, this is right at the terminus position of the glacier in 2005.

The temperature data from March, which is a good approximation of WEqT, for all sensors is plotted below:

All the sensors except 9 indicate that there is ground ice beneath, but at 9 it seems that either there is no glacier ice beneath this location or the debris cover is so thick that the BST cannot ‘feel’ the influence of the ice beneath the debris cover.The two closest thicknesses to this site, just to the west (10cm) and to the SW (37cm) are not the thickest on the glacier but 37 cm is certainly thicker debris than is found at any of the other recovered HOBO sensors. See this other post for more information on the debris thickness on Suldenferner: http://lindseynicholson.org/2015/08/suldenferner-debris-thickness/)

How can we interpret this? I think the temperature data indicates that the site of sdf9 can no longer be considered part of the glacier than is undergoing surface lowering by ablation, and this is backed up by the surface lowering measured by airborne laser scanning.

Aside from this I have yet to find an interesting story to draw out of these surface temperature data. They show that the snowpack over Suldenferner becomes fully temperature (BST reaches 0°C) at sites 3-13 by about 22 May, and additionally at site 1-2 by 06 June. Snowcover persists across the glacier for a further month, and the HOBO sites begin to show signs of strong diurnal cycles in temperature from 07 July, although snow cover is not lost from sdf1 until 30 July.

The maximum temperatures reached during summer days are above 35°C, which is not unreasonable for surface debris, but I would not trust these data as the sensors are housed in black rubber and likely to experience solar heating if the debris moves at all. The night-time temperatures on the other hand might be able to tell us something, so I looked at just those from the first 5 days after I installed the sensors – when I hope the sensors have not moved much from where I put them. Below I have plotted the mean temp from UTM 21:00-01:00 against the elevation of the HOBO sensor:

The character of the elevation relationship remains similar across all nights, and the positive values at 2600m are from sdf9. I wondered if I might be able to draw out a relationship between night-time temperature and elevation, but in fact I now think (as I should have before) that this is really a better indication of the debris thickness at each site, with thicker debris showing the higher nocturnal temperatures, as a thick debris layer has more stored heat from the day time. For the other HOBO sites though the debris thickness is small. The vertical lapse rates in temperature on, for example the 30th September, is about -0.5° over 100m elevation gain, which is in the ball park of typical standard atmospheric lapse rates.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on The extent of Suldenferner glacier

Modelling the future of glaciers in Tirol

My former colleague Ben Marzeion (now at Bremen University) developed a simple way to calculate the changes in glaciers using only air temperature and precipitation as inputs. What is critical to a glacier is how much snowfall it gets per year (which adds mass to the glacier) and how much of the glacier will melt each year. The temperature dictates whether the glacier will get rain or snow, and also the air temperature describes a whole bunch of weather conditions that for many glaciers mean that higher temperatures are associated with more melting.

This simple model is fitted to the available records of glacier changes, and when fitted it recreates the historical glacier changes pretty convincingly.  Ben worked with Marlis Hofer to implement a statistical way of estimating the reliability (error) of the model. How this works is that, if , for example you have 20 years of glacier observations, you can fit the model to all 20 years to get the ‘best’ model result, but you can also fit it to 19 of the 20 years and then assess you well the model reproduces the year that you left out. If you do this assessment by leaving out each of the 20 years in turn you can use the results as an indication of how well your model works for predicting unknown years.

Ok, so by running this model into the future we can get an idea of how the glaciers of Tirol will be up to the end of the century. But of course to do this we first need a set of projected climate conditions. These are taken from the IPCC simulations of future climate, but as we don’t know how humanity is going to behave (carry on emitting greenhouse gases or push for a switch from fossil fuels) various future climates are simulated using ‘representative concentration pathways‘ (RCPs) that correspond to different actions on the part of the people of the world.

So lets look at the example of the Stubaier Alps, closest to Innsbruck (description below figure):

Modelled evolution of the glaciers in the Stubaier Alps (1900 – 2100 AD)  based on different climate models and climate scenarios. On the left axes the charts show (top) cumulative annual change in glacier volume; (middle) annual rate of change of volume and (bottom) cumulative change in area. On the right axes the charts show the glacier volume as a % of the volume in 2000, (middle) annual volume change as a % of the glacier volume as a % of the volume  of the year before (bottom) the glacier area through time as a % of the glacier area in 2000. The black line (uncertainty ranges in grey) is modeled using climate model input from CMIP5 experiment (historical) and in purple using the Climate Research Unit climate reconstruction from available measurements (CRU), to the right of the graph, where things are more colorful, the model is forced by the four possible climate futures used in the IPCC, all of which are considered possible depending on how much greenhouse gases are emitted in the years to come. The four RCPs, RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6, and RCP8.5, are named after a possible range of radiative forcing values in the year 2100 relative to pre-industrial values (essentially how much more energy the climate system will contain relative to now: +2.6, +4.5, +6.0, and +8.5 W/m2, respectively). The numbers at the top (57.8km2 and 2.2km2) are the average glacier area and volume of this area between 1986 and 2005 as obtained by the model.

So, you can see from just the top panel that by 2050 this model predicts that glacier areas are likely to be <25% of their area in 2000, regardless of what levels of greenhouse gases we emit, so not looking good for the Stubaier Alps glaciers is it? But what about the rest of Tirol? Well the figure below shows is that even with the most aggressive reduction in green house gas emissions the glaciers in Tirol will reduce to about 10% of their 2000 size by the end of the century. If we  make do not alter our current behaviour regarding greenhouse gas emissions, its possible that there will be no glaciers left in Tirol by the end of the century. The results of this modelling exercise suggest that the Tirolean glaciers will be practically gone within the lifetime of our children.

The data for these figures comes from: Marzeion, B.; Hofer, M.; Jarosch, A. H.; Kaser, G.; Mölg, T. A Minimal Model for Reconstructing Interannual Mass Balance Variability of Glaciers in the European Alps. The Cryosphere. 2012, 6 (1), 71–84 DOI: 10.5194/tc-6-71-2012.

The figures and description were provided by Wolfgang Gurgiser

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Modelling the future of glaciers in Tirol

A correction to our published paper

Recently, well, ok now that I get round to posting this, not so recently, as this happened at the end of last year …. we found a mistake in one of papers:

Collier, E., Nicholson, L. I., Brock, B. W., Maussion, F., Essery, R., and Bush, A. B. G.: Representing moisture fluxes and phase changes in glacier debris cover using a reservoir approach, The Cryosphere, 8, 1429-1444, doi:10.5194/tc-8-1429-2014, 2014.

In the published paper, three debris properties stated to represent “whole-rock” values are inaccurately specified in the published simulations: namely, whole-rock thermal conductivity (0.94 W m-1 K-1), specific heat capacity (948 J kg-1 K-1), and density (1496 kg m-3; cf. Table 1 in Collier et al., 2014). The values for the first two parameters were estimated from whole-rock values of typical facies present on the Miage Glacier, corrected for observed porosity and an estimated moisture content. The thermal conductivity was computed by averaging 25 point measurements on debris at the Miage Glacier in 2005 using the “residual” approach, as explained in Brock et al. (2010). Therefore, all three values represent “effective” debris properties rather than whole-rock properties and include some influence of moisture content and porosity. We incorrectly used these values to calcualte bulk debris thermal conductivity from it, in effect accounting for the voids and void fill material (water/air/ice) twice over.

Careless, but we are only human.

Luckily, science is an ongoing process, and so the deal with finding an error in your work is to publish an erratum, which we have done, and you can read it in full here.

The way we dealt with our mistake was to assess the impact of these inaccurate parameter choices on our published results. To do this, we performed a Monte Carlo simulation using new ranges for the three whole-rock properties, which bracket published values for common rock types. Monte Carlo simulations involve running a numerical model many times (in this case 20,000 times) with different configurations and then looking at the spread of these results as an indication of the impact of the parameter choices on the modelled system behaviour.

The modelled cumulative sub-debris ice melt is increased by a factor of 2–2.5 compared with the published simulations due to the increase in whole-rock thermal conductivity (see below), and the overestimation of sensible heat flux evident in the published paper is reduced using these more correct parameter ranges (e.g., for the case of a simulated dry debris cover this was reduced from 65 W m-2 in the published paper to 10-50 W m-2), which is nice.

A time series of cumulative sub-debris ice melt (kgm?2) for the (a) 2008 and (b) 2011 simulations and the CMB-RES (blue curves) and CMB-DRY (grey) cases. The single lines show the results from the originally published simulations, while the filled polygons indicate the range of solutions from the Monte Carlo simulations.

The main conclusions of our paper still hold true when we do the simulations with the corrected debris properties:

1. Sub-debris ice melt is reduced when moisture is considered, largely due to heat extraction by the latent heat flux and also through changes in the debris thermal properties

2. When moisture is considered in the simulations for 2008, total cumulative mass balance is more negative – for thermal conductivity values below 2 W m-1 K-1 – since surface vapour fluxes compensate reduced sub-debris ice melt. Conversely, considering moisture in the simulations for 2011 reduces the mass loss due to the formation of ice near the base of the debris, which reduces heat transfer to the underlying ice regardless of the debris property specification.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on A correction to our published paper

Debris covered glaciers as analogues for ice on Mars

Since the launch of Mariner 9 in 1071 we have been getting better and better images and information about Mars, from improved satellite imagery, radar and ground sampling from the amazing Mars rovers.

We now know that both water and carbon dioxide ice exist on Mars. Polar ice caps, substantial ground and surface ice including glacier like forms (often referred to as GLFs in the relevant scientific literature) are all found on Mars. As a glaciologist working on debris-covered glaciers the GLFs are particularly interesting. Basically, these are things that, from the imagery, look very similar to glaciers on earth from satellite imagery, they show gravitational flow features and moraine loops and so on. However, the understanding of the flow and behaviour of GLFs is less clear than their existence. For one thing, there are crucial differences between the conditions on Earth and Mars (from Hubbard et al., 2014) that will affect glacier behaviour:

  • Mars’ gravity, at ~3.7ms-2, is less than 40% of Earth’s.
  • Mars’ surface temperature varies between -130 and +27°C, with a mean of about -60°C, so around 75°C lower than on Earth.
  • Mars’ near-surface atmosphere has a partial pressure of H2O of ~1microbar, making the planet’s surface ~1000 times drier than Earth’s.
  • Mars’ GLFs are covered in debris 1-10m thick, according to findings of the planetary radar project SHARAD and other flowing ice is expected to be an ice-debris mixture.
A GLF in Protonilus Mensae; Mars’ northern mid-latitudes (picture oriented north-up). Note the moraine-like structures at the GLF’s lower extremity (flow is di-rected to the S-E) and the crevasse patterns visible to-wards it’s mid-reaches.

Current research efforts seem to be focused on trying to model the flow behaviour of martian glaciers given the current and former conditions on Mars. Must be fascinating work and I always enjoy reading about the findings. Its also fun when my own modest contributions to our understanding of debris covered glaciers on Earth can be used to help other scientists understand the processes acting on Mars.

What prodded me to spend an hour of my Monday morning hunting out the latest publications on Martian glaciers was this video constructed from HiRISE imagery to reconstruct a flyover of parts of the surface of Mars – its quite amazing:

More things to look at for information on Martian glaciers:

Great post by Stephen Brough about ice on Mars: http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glacial-geology/glaciers-mars/C and also have a look at his research website: https://glaciersonmars.com/

You can check out the amazing 3D (with glasses) HiRISE images from Mars here: http://www.uahirise.org/anaglyph/

Also, the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory of the University of Arizona, where the HiRISE project comes from, produces these cool one slide summaries of their research, which is a great idea that many more scientists could do: http://www.uahirise.org/epo/nuggets/

This freely available academic article describes in particular the GLFs: Hubbard, B., Souness, C., and Brough, S.: Glacier-like forms on Mars, The Cryosphere, 8, 2047-2061, doi:10.5194/tc-8-2047-2014, 2014.[pdf], and this one examines their former extents: Brough, S., Hubbard, B. and Hubbard, A.: Former extent of glacier-like forms on Mars, Icarus, 274, 37-49, 2016 [pdf].

These abstracts from the Sixth International Conference on Mars Polar Science and Exploration (2016) and the 48th and 47th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2017) are all freely downloadable (see here) and mostly easy to read:

Applying Knowledge from Terrestrial Debris-Covered Glaciers to Constrain the Evolution of Martian Debris-Covered Ice
M. R. Koutnik, A. V. Pathare, C. Todd, E. Waddington, J. E. Christian
Sixth International Conference on Mars Polar Science and Exploration (2016), Abstract #6065

Physical Properties of Supraglacial Debris on Mars
D. M. H. Baker, L. M. Carter
Sixth International Conference on Mars Polar Science and Exploration (2016), Abstract #6087

Applications of Ice-Flow Models to Mars
M. R. Koutnik, A. V. Pathare, E. D. Waddington, C. E. Todd, J. E. Christian
48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2017), Abstract #2188

Hot Mess, Cold Glaciers: Characterizing Ridges on Martian and Terrestrial Debris-Covered Glaciers Using Observations and Flow Modelling
C. M. Stuurman, J. W. Holt, J. S. Levy, E. I. Petersen
48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2017), Abstract #2740

Ice-Cored Moraines May Preserve Climate History in Their Stratigraphy: A Mars Analog Study at Galena Creek Rock Glacier
E. I. Petersen, J. W. Holt, J. S. Levy, C. S. Stuurman
48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2017), Abstract #2966

New Constraints on Surface Debris Layer Composition for Martian Mid-Latitude Glaciers from SHARAD and HiRISE
E. I. Petersen, J. W. Holt, J. S. Levy, T. A. Goudge
48th Lunar and Planetary Science Conference (2017), Abstract #2767

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Debris covered glaciers as analogues for ice on Mars

World Glacier Monitoring Service video

In 2016, the World Glacier Monitoring Service (WGMS) celebrated its 30 year existence, although some of the data series held by the WGMS extends much further back in time. In 1986, two former ICSI (now IACS: International Association of Cryospheric Sciences) services; PSFG (Permanent Service on Fluctuations of Glaciers) and TTS/WGI (Temporal Technical Secretariat/World Glacier Inventory) were combined to form the WGMS. The new service started to maintain and continue the worldwide collection of information on glacier distribution and changes. The WGMS has been funded by the Swiss GCOS Office at the Federal Office of Meteorology and Climatology MeteoSwiss since 2010.

Here is the video made to celebrate the anniversary of the WGMS:

You can check out the data held by the WGMS yourself, read the pentadal Fluctuations of Glaciers (FoG) reports, or even download their app to find out more about the glaciers that are monitored worldwide. And of course, if you, or your organisation measure a glacier as part of your work, then I reckon the WGMS would be delighted to hear from you and hear how they can add your data to this global resource.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on World Glacier Monitoring Service video

Calving rates and impact on sea level (CRIOS project)

The research project ‘Calving rates and impact on sea level’ (CRIOS) has kept a number of my colleagues in Svalbard and elsewhere busy over recent years. Penny How, a PhD student at Edinburgh University is a bit of a pro-star at making short science videos and here is an example video describing her part of the project, which involves deploying a series of automatic cameras to observe the behaviour of calving glacier termini.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Calving rates and impact on sea level (CRIOS project)

Report on observed outburst flood in Khumbu

In June 2016, a team of scientists visiting the Khumbu region observed a flood near Chukhung. Rare footage of floodwaters exiting the nearby Lhotse glacier and flowing towards Chukung on 12 June 2016, was recorded by Elisabeth Byers, and now the scientists have written up a a short open-source article on the event and their observations of this and a previous flood in the region, published in The Cryosphere.

Here is a reproduction of Figure 2 from this article illustrating the features of the 2016 flood (I think this is allowed as its an open source paper!):

Figure: Key features of the glacier outburst flood from Lhotse Glacier: (a) subsurface and supraglacial flooding where the event was first observed; (b) main channels of flood path during the flood’s peak; (c) flood undercutting the gabions at Chukhung, at 14:19; (d) potentially drained pond with large bare ice faces behind it; (e) potentially drained pond with a collapsed englacial conduit behind it; (f) potentially drained pond with sinkholes; (g) meltwater exiting the glacier into the main channel via a large englacial conduit; (h) a vertical englacial conduit and sinkholes with wet, fine sediment indicating a drainage pathway; and (i) large vertical crevasses with clean ice likely from the supraglacial flood path.

The research was supported by the National Science Foundation Dynamics of Coupled Natural and Human Systems (NSF-CNH) Program (award no. 1516912), and Dhananjay Regmi of Himalayan Research Expeditions provided logistical support and Bidhya Sharma provided additional images and videos for this study.

Rounce, D. R., Byers, A. C., Byers, E. A., and McKinney, D. C.: Brief communication: Observations of a glacier outburst flood from Lhotse Glacier, Everest area, Nepal, The Cryosphere, 11, 443-449, doi:10.5194/tc-11-443-2017, 2017.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Report on observed outburst flood in Khumbu

Observations of changing mountain glaciers

Dr Mauri Pelto has a great blog called From a Glacier’s Perspective in which twice a week he posts case studies of glacier change observed from freely available satellite data. Its a great tour of the worlds glaciers and an often reveals interesting glacier changes that get me thinking of the partly common, and partly contrasting glacier responses to their forcing climate.

This blog has led to a book published by Wiley Blackwell called Recent Climate change Impacts on Mountain Glaciers. Mauri describes the book as follows:

The goal of this volume is to tell the story, glacier by glacier, of response to climate change from 1984-2015. Of the 165 glaciers examined in 10 different alpine regions, 162 have retreated significantly. It is evident that the changes are significant, not happening at a “glacial” pace, and are profoundly affecting alpine regions. There is a consistent result that reverberates from mountain range to mountain range, which emphasizes that although regional glacier and climate feedbacks differ, global changes are driving the response. This book considers ten different glaciated regions around the individual glaciers, and offers a different tune to the same chorus of glacier volume loss in the face of climate change.

Dr Pelto also leads the North Cascade Glacier Climate Project which, since 1984 has monitored numerous glaciers in the North Cascades – more than any other monitoring program in North America.

Speaking of North American glaciers I recently found a nice compilation of repeat photographs of glaciers in Glacier National Park, whose name is looking increasingly out-dated. Here is an example image pair from this compilation, the rest of which you can see in the pdf or the webpage.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Observations of changing mountain glaciers

Whats a gigatonne?

One challenge in science is framing quantities that we are used to dealing with in a way that people who are not used to dealing with them can understand. For global glaciology the challenge is in explaining mass changes from ice to water in the order of 100s of gigatonnes … but what is a gigatonne?

A tonne (t) is the mass of 1000 kilograms (kg) – which for water, occupies 1 cubic metre (a cube of 1m x 1m x 1m)

A gigatonne (Gt) is 1 billion tonnes, which is 1 trillion kilograms – for water this occupies 1 cubic kilometer (1km x 1km x 1km).

Thats not really helpful is it?

Dr Alex Gardner of JPL recently gave a public lecture, which you can watch here. In it he used a cool visualization to illustrate how huge these quantities are, and I asked him for the image afterwards, so here is what 3Gt looks like in the context of Manhattan:

Data from NASA’s GRACE satellites (which are very cool and have been measuring gravity anomalies over the earths surface since 2002) show that the land ice sheets in both Antarctica and Greenland are losing mass. The continent of Antarctica has been losing about 118 gigatonnes of ice per year since 2002 (with a certainty margin of ± 79 Gt per year), while the Greenland ice sheet has been losing an estimated 281 gigatonnes per year since 2002 (with a certainty margin of ± 29Gt per year). You can see the updated graphs of mass changes from Antarctica and Greenland on NASAs website here.

Together, that is equivalent to 133 of the 3 blue cubes in the picture above converted from ice to water each year since 2002.

Thats a lot, right?

Cumulatively, since 2002 up until March 2016, the NASA data shows Antarctica has lost 1507.5Gt and Greenland has lost 3540Gt. Together that is 5047.5Gt converted from ice to water from Antarctica and Greenland since 2002. So thats over 1600 of the 3 cubes in the picture above and I’m back to the situation where its hard to visualize!! See how tricky this is?

For more interesting visualizations, the Danish Meteorological Institute produces the very brilliant Polar Portal, which plots all manner of data about Greenland. You’ll notice some differences in the exact numbers reported. This is because scientists are continually trying to improve the quality of measures of spatial distribution of mass change over the earth determined from the GRACE satellites. Polar Portal also plots its cumulative mass changes relative to summer 2006 rather than from the launch of the GRACE satellites in March 2002. Don’t let this put you off, get frustrated, or doubt the data. Its  absolutely astounding that we can measure mass changes from space and evolving changes in how the exact values are computed is analogous to improving at a sport: The first time you do a 180 on your snowboard you’re happy just to have landed it, and indeed the main achievement has been met, but over time you do more and more and they get incrementally better and better. Refinement. Different people might give you different tips and have different ideas on how you can achieve this refinement. Refining it won’t change the fact that it was a 180 already, but you’ll likely want to get it as good as you can, right? So it is with science, we will keep on working to get the most accurate estimates of the state of our planet as we possibly can.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Whats a gigatonne?

International Day of Women and Girls in Science

On 11 February it was International Day of Women and Girls in Science. Which is a UN Event apparently. To be honest my usual way of tackling gender imbalance in science is just to try and get on with being both a woman and a scientist. At the same time. I know. Its incredible.

Seriously though, of course it is important to have talented people working in science from all gender definitions, races, backgrounds, orientations and political views. Science is supposed to be merit-based and objective, and minimise implicit biases in its analysis and so I presume also in its places of work. I’m lucky to work in a field where (at least) gender imbalance is definitely reducing, though it remains inbalanced, and it is certainly not (yet) a very racially representative research community.

Have a look at this figure from Hulbe, Wang and Omanney (2010) analysing the gender of authors of submissions to the Journal of Glaciology over its history:

Contributions to the Journal and Annals of Glaciology from 1947 to 2009, classified by author sex. Grey bars indicate male authors and black bars indicate female authors, and the total number of female authors is indicated until it is consistently larger than 10. (a) Classified first authorships. (b) All classified authorships. The author database was provided by the IGS in August 2010. The author classification is geographically diverse and we were able to identify author sex for approximately 72% of all papers and 70% of first authors. Emphasis was placed on classifying authors cited for more than one paper.

Still some way to go I’d say. But my own experience feels quite different. I’ve been exposed to some great female and male role models, worked with many female co-authors, and in departments that  at least feel quite well balanced gender-wise. A sample of female scientists that have directly inspired and impressed me during my career include Ruth Robinson, Dorthe Dahl Jensen, Liz Morris, Almut Iken, Catherine Ritz, Anna Wirbel, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Sarah Gleeson, Emily Collier, Bethan Davies, Miriam Jackson, Anne-Marie Nutall. Some of these women I know well, others hardly at all, only through their work and leadership in our shared research field, or in teaching, or in outreach.

Nevertheless, the numbers show that there are still fewer women at the top and that many young school students are still put off various careers and passions due to gender biases, so I thought I’d take the opportunity to highlight a few of the programs and initiatives I know of that aim to support girls and women in science and technology in general, and in my research field in particular, so here goes with my very incomplete list:

First off, I’d like to say that my salary is currently paid by a grant specifically targeting getting women to the senior researcher levels and eligible to apply for professorships – thank you FWF Elise Richter Grant

STEM women network

Association for Women in Science

A mighty girl

Girls who code

Women in Polar Science network

Homeward Bound leadership program

Inspiring Girls expeditions

L’Oreal Foundation

6 adventure grants for women

7 great organizations for women in science

Wikipedia list of organizations for women in science

List of grants for women in science

So,  lets be having you ladies 🙂

I’ll close with an obvious declaration that I am a feminist and I can’t understand any person who is not. I resonate most with Cheris Kramaraes famous line that “Feminism is the radical notion that women are human beings”, which makes the whole thing well beyond discussion, and also always makes me laugh.

Please let me know if there are more good resources and networks to list here and I can keep this list growing. In the meantime the glaciologists among you might enjoy reading the article quoted above:

Hulbe, C. L., Wang, W., & Ommanney, S. (2011). Women in glaciology, a historical perspective. Journal of Glaciology, 56(200), 944–964. http://doi.org/10.3189/002214311796406202 [pdf]

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on International Day of Women and Girls in Science