Guilt Trip movie at St Anton Film festival

The 23rd St Anton Film Festival celebrates mountains, people, and adventures between the two. This year kicks off by featuring the activities of some pretty hardcore female adventurers, which is of course of special interest to our own all-female crew preparing to cross Greenland.

The organisers of the film festival like to have a live discussion of each movie, and I’ve been asked to go and speak about the changing state of the ice in the Alps and Greenland on the 24th August, associated with the movie Guilt Trip, which you can read about on the salomonTV website.

The movie, directed and produced by Anthony Bonello and Mike Douglas is about the skiers Chris Rubens, Kalen Thorien, Simon Thomson and Pierre Muller and their aim to ski Mt Forel, which is the second highest peak in Greenland and sits right on the divide between the mountains to the east and the wide open ice sheet to the west.

The only thing greater than this group of skiers’ desire to claim a first ski descent on Greenland’s second highest peak is the size of their carbon footprint to get there. Loaded with guilt, they decide to bring along renowned glaciologist, Alun Hubbard, whose hypothesis, if proven, could rewrite popular projections of global sea-level rise. However, the entire expedition is put in question when they arrive in Greenland and discover their objective is beyond the range of all available aircraft.

Helicopters are expensive in Eastern Greenland and fuel is not unlimited. These guys had to haul their gear on pulkas to get close to their target, and their science is all about the impacts of a melting Greenland icesheet so it’s a freeride ski movie with more in common with our scientific traverse of Greenland than you’d think possible!

Here is the trailer:

 And here is the movie (its 35 minutes)

Movie credits:

Featuring Alun Hubbard, Chris Rubens, Kalen Thorien, Simon Thomson, Pierre Muller
Directed & Produced by Anthony Bonello, Mike Douglas

Executive Producers Bruno Bertrand, Ben Aidan
Narrated & Edited by Anthony Bonello
Cinematography Mike Douglas, Anthony Bonello
Photography Bruno Long
Associate Producer Susie Douglas
Original music by Alex Hackett
Sound design & Mix by Jeff Yellen
Illustration by Jessa Gilbert
Graphics by Blair Richmond

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Guilt Trip movie at St Anton Film festival

Surging and supraglacial debris

Model studies suggest that sudden formation of supraglacial debris cover might cause glaciers to advance, by inhibiting ice melt in the lower reaches and altering the driving stresses if the debris deposit is massive enough (basically the weight of the rockfall deposit forces the ice to flow faster). For example, Vacco and others (2010) used a numerical glacier flow-line model with superimposed rock debris to show that a glacier advance caused by deposition of a rock avalanche on the ice will be followed by stagnation of the advanced ice lobe, producing distributed, hummocky deposits quite different from the single moraine ridges typically dated in paleoclimatic reconstructions. This type of rapid advance is different to periodic fast and slow flow that is characteristic of true ‘surge-type’ glaciers.

The cool thing is though that the surface debris cover shows really nice evidence of former surges at the surface of the glacier. For example, look at this photo of the Susitna Glacier in Alaksa:

I found this image on wikiversity, but its credited to Brian John (The image appears on a website entitled, “Stonehenge and the Ice Age” at, though I suspect it might come from the USGS archives originally.
Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Surging and supraglacial debris

Studies on Hochjochferner – glaciological mass balance

In our, now completed, hiSNOW project the aim of the research was to compare methods of determining glacier and catchment scale runoff at a range of scales. While scientists and students in the Hydro_Climatology group of the Geography department have worked on running a catchment hydrological model called AMUNDSEN, and colleagues at EURAC have worked on determining the evolution of snow cover and glacier snowlines from satellite data, University of Innsbruck MSc students Hannah Prandtl and Franz Grüsser, working within the Remote Sensing and topographic LiDAR research group, led the charge to compute geodetic mass changes of the glacier from terrestrial laser scanning and Rainer Prinz and myself (though mainly Rainer) measured the mass balance by the traditional glaciological method. You can read about the various methods of determining glacier mass balance in this UNESCO Glossary of Glacier Mass Balance and Related Terms.

Hochjochferner is a  small valley glacier close to the Italian-Austrian border. During the last expanded glacier extent during the Little Ice Age, a long glacier tongue descended the upper Rofental, but glacier recession since then has caused the glacier tongue to be lost and now a number of smaller glaciers are what is left of the disintegrated former Hochjochferner. The most south-easterly of these glaciers hosts the Kurzras ski area – accessed from Italy. The site of our study is the next glacier body to the north-west of the ski area (blue in the figure below).

HJFMap of Hochjochferner, showing the part that is being measured in this study (blue), the ski area (yellow) and the intervening debris-covered ice (orange) as well as the rest of the glacier also known as Hochjochferner (green). The map shows all the locations of stakes measured on this site (6 on the glacier, 2 on the debris-covered ice, and 1 in the lower ski area). It also shows the locations of snow pits excavated to determine snow properties, th locations from which TLS scans were made, and the reflectors used for ground control points in the TLS scans. Figure by Hannah Prandtl.

The hydrological year in this part of the world runs from 01-October until 30-September, so glaciological mass balance for this glacier is calculated over this period, with 01/10/2013-30/09/2014 being termed the mass balance year 2014, or more simply the annual mass balance for 2013/2014. We visit and measure the 6 stakes drilled into the glacier surface and measure the surface height change there as well as determining the density of the surface (fresh snow is less dense than old snow, which is less dense than ice) so that these height changes can be converted into a water equivalent depth change over the year. Then a contour map of the likely pattern of this water equivalent surface change is mapped out by hand using these stake data and photographs from the field to see where the snowline was. The mass change within fixed elevation bands on the glacier is then calculated, summed and divided by the total glacier area to get the specific glacier mass balance.

It turns out that while 2013/14 was a year when a moderate mass was lost (-244 kg m-2 … equivalent to removing a water layer of 24.4cm depth from the whole glacier surface), 2014/15 was a pretty nasty one for this glacier, with much more mass loss occurring (-2030 kg m-2 … equivalent to removing a water layer of 203cm (over 2m!) depth from the whole glacier surface). Here is the map of surface mass change (in units of mm water equivalent depth, which is numerically the same as mass units of kg m-2) for the mass balance year 2013/14 as determined from the glaciological method:

We are currently working on a paper looking at how the accuracy of the contouring used in distributing the point mass balance data affects the end value of glacier mass balance.

Now PhD student Hannah Prandtl has just published a paper on using laser scanning return signals intensity and glacier surface classification schemes to map the changing snow cover over the glacier in detail over a summer ablation season.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Studies on Hochjochferner – glaciological mass balance

Glacier fieldwork guidelines

Summer time is time for glaciologists to get busy on glaciers … in my case its fixing weather stations,  drilling ablation stakes, trying my first dye tracing experiments to see how long it takes meltwater to pass through the glacier we are studying, setting up automatic cameras, some thermal imagery, and hopefully some surveys with unmanned aerial vehicles (a.k.a., in this case friendly, drones).

Here is me looking puzzled by my weather station on Suldenferner. I’m probably about to lower the sensors to be a little bit closer to the glacier surface.

There are a number of sources of useful information for undertaking glacier fieldwork, aside from having the requisite safety skills to hang around on glaciers a fair bit, while concentrating on other things.

An early document providing background to the modern glaciological fieldwork is “Combined heat, ice and water balances at selected glacier basins: A guide for compilation and assemblage of data for glacier mass balance measurements“, published by UNESCO/IASH in 1970. This was substantially updated and replaced by “A manual for monitoring the mass balance of mountain glaciers” written by G. Kaser, A Fountain and P. Jansson, also published by UNESCO in 2003. There is also the more more recent UNESCO/IACS “Glossary of glacier mass balance and related terms” led by G. Cogley and published in 2011.

An early full textbook on these techniques was written by G. Østrem and M. Brugman in 1991: “Glacier Mass  balance measurements: A manual for field and office work”, and the more recent “Field Techniques in Glaciology and Glacial Geomorphology” by B. Hubbard and N. Glasser, published by Wiley in 1995 expands the scope to many geophysical and geomorphological techniques relevant to glaciologists.

in 2004 the Institut de Recherche pour le Développement in France produced a Spanish langauge guide specifically aimed at monitoring glaciers in the Tropical Andes, though much of the content is valid for mountain glaciers elsewhere: “Métodos de observación de glaciares en los Andes Troplicales

So there it is, wishing you success and fun out there! Viel Spaß auf den Gletschern! Disfruta tu tiempo en los glaciares!

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Glacier fieldwork guidelines

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:

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 (kg m-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: and also have a look at his research website:

You can check out the amazing 3D (with glasses) HiRISE images from Mars here:

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:

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)