Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth

Geologists Marvel at Alaska Glacier's Rare 'Surge' -- Up to 60 Feet a Day (sfgate.com) 94

Posted by EditorDavid from the on-the-rocks dept.
The hills of ice at the base of Alaska's Muldrow Glacier "have sat undisturbed and covered by tundra for more than 60 years," reports the Washington Post, adding that in normal years the glacier only moves about three inches a day.

But that's suddenly changed, and they're now moving between 360 and 720 inches a day (that is, 30 to 60 feet, every day). The rare phenomenon began last fall some 12 miles uphill. That's where the glacier initially started sliding, its smooth surface ice cracking under tremendous, hidden stresses. New crevasses opened and ice cliffs were pushed up in a chaotic jumble. The first witness was a pilot who spied the scene in March as he flew around the north side of Denali, the continent's tallest mountain.

The Muldrow has been "surging" forward ever since, at speeds up to 100 times faster than normal....

Surges are one of the last mysteries for those who study glaciers, in part because they happen so infrequently and in just a fraction of places around the world. The activity is different from a glacier actually growing in size, and it can take decades for the right conditions to develop.... The prevailing theory of surges is that the natural advance of a glacier causes friction, which melts the deepest ice. Loose gravel traps the meltwater underneath. But as snow and ice accumulate in the glacier's higher elevations, the mass there gets top heavy. A surge redistributes that mass to lower elevations, with the meltwater serving as a lubricant that helps the glacier pick up speed as it slides downhill.

This last happened with the Muldrow during the winter and spring of 1956-57. Given its record of surges roughly every 50 years, scientists had long anticipated the current event. Their concern is that a warming climate could spell disaster for future surges. "You wonder, 'Are you going to ever be able to see the surge again?' " said Chad Hults, regional geologist for Alaska's national parks. "I don't know, because 50 years from now, you might lose enough glacier ice that even if it surges... you might not actually even be able to see any difference."

For most of the glaciologists and geologists tracking today's surge, it's a once-in-a-lifetime thrill.
The article also reminds readers that "across the Alaska Range, glaciers are losing mass because of climate change."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Geologists Marvel at Alaska Glacier's Rare 'Surge' -- Up to 60 Feet a Day More

Geologists Marvel at Alaska Glacier's Rare 'Surge' -- Up to 60 Feet a Day

Comments Filter:

  • The article also reminds readers that "across the Alaska Range, glaciers are losing mass because of climate change."

    With the drought [youtu.be] something else will be losing "mass" due to climate change.

  • Here we go. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Every time something unusual is noticed, it will be turned into a major catastophe and attributed to climate change. Oh shit, the yellow-flecked glacier moth is losing habitat and we're all gonna DIE!

  • I also marvel. (Score:3, Informative)

    by MacMann ( 7518492 ) on Sunday June 06, 2021 @08:41PM (#61460960)

    I marvel that there's a lot of talk about the problem but so little about solutions.

    Can we get some more nuclear power plants now? No? Okay then, we will just let the planet warm until people are serious about solutions.

    How about now? Can we have some more nuclear power plants now? Still no? Okay, let me know when you want solutions, nuclear power will still be there when you get serious.

    • Re: (Score:2, Troll)

      by Ostracus ( 1354233 )

      If we've already reached the tipping point then nuclear isn't going to save us. We need to evacuate to Mars immediately.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by MrHops ( 712514 )

        If we've already reached the tipping point then nuclear isn't going to save us. We need to evacuate to Mars immediately.

        You must mean: "Get your ass to Mars", right?

    • You simply refuse to acknowledge the memo that renewables are the cheapest and safest source of energy today, do you?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dasunt ( 249686 )

        You simply refuse to acknowledge the memo that renewables are the cheapest and safest source of energy today, do you?

        Cheapest? Maybe.

        Safest? Perhaps not.

        Per TWh, nuclear is pretty dang low.

        Nuclear can be grouped in with solar and wind at the lower end of deaths per TWh.

        Coal is, by all studies, just horribly bad when it comes for deaths per TWh. Ditto oil.

        Then depending on the study, it's usually natural gas that's next in line for the most deaths, followed by rooftop solar and hydroelectric.

      • Are they reliable? Seems to me that solar power has a problem with the sun setting. The wind doesn't always blow. The rain doesn't always fall.

        Are they plentiful? Not everywhere is suited for renewable energy. We should use it where the costs are low but that low cost is dependent on geography and climate.

        There may be enough land area per person, and enough diversity in climate, in large nations like the USA, Canada, Russia, Australia, and a few more for energy from the wind, water, and sun to meet the

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      There are plenty of solutions. Get on with tapping that massive offshore wind capacity for a start. Way cheaper than nuclear and much less vulnerable to NIMBY lawsuits.

      At the very least we need to get all the low hanging fruit before looking at the really expensive, contentious options.

    • I marvel at how many nuclear shills there are on Slashdot so many years after it has been proven that they are unsustainable and unaffordable.

    • There is movement in nuclear. Take a look at NuScale and TerraPower. These are both smallish nuclear reactors that can potentially be used to retrofit existing plants. Its clear that in the next 10 years, there will be a bunch of these come online.

    • I marvel that there's a lot of talk about the problem but so little about solutions.

      Can we get some more nuclear power plants now? No? Okay then, we will just let the planet warm until people are serious about solutions.

      How about now? Can we have some more nuclear power plants now? Still no? Okay, let me know when you want solutions, nuclear power will still be there when you get serious.

      Global warming Here in Montreal, for June 5-8, we have had 32C to 36C daily. Normally we get this temperature near the third week of July. Its about 1 month early. Winter is also much milder, we used a lot less fuel to heat our home this year, compared to the best of the previous 10 winters.

      • That sounds like AGW has been beneficial to you.

        Global warming is not a universal bad, some people will come out ahead. Some people won't even notice. Is anyone in the tropics concerned about AGW? Seems to me that no matter what it's still going to be quite warm and rainy. Sounds good for cheap energy from wind, water, and sun.

        What does this mean for nations like USA, UK, Japan, Germany, France, China, and so many more? It means a need to build nuclear power plants because energy from wind, water, and

  • Ha ha (Score:1, Troll)

    by mschuyler ( 197441 )

    "The article also reminds readers that "across the Alaska Range, glaciers are losing mass because of climate change."

    Be sure not to change the narrative!

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

      What narrative? The science doesn’t lie. Feel free to run your own simulation if you feel the scientific community is wrong. Here it is in terms you can understand. https://xkcd.com/1732/ [xkcd.com]

      • There's always that guy. The glacier is surging. That's a fact.

        • The glacier is surging.

          I get the distinct impression you have no idea what that means.

          • The glacier is surging.

            I get the distinct impression you have no idea what that means.

            You seem to want to imply you have some knowledge, but you couldn't think of anything to say. So you attack a person who did say something.

            It's OK that you don't understand. You're either curious, or you're not. No need to pretend.

            • You seem to want to imply you have some knowledge, but you couldn't think of anything to say. So you attack a person who did say something.

              That's a stupid conclusion to come to.
              Let me explain why. I'll use small words for you.

              Individual in question used that fact as evidence that his prior implied claim was true- that a "surging" glacier was evidence against climate change.
              This indicates that the individual in question does not understand what a surge is.

              Since you are likely equally as fucking clueless, as indicated from your post, I'll explain it to you.
              Again, I'll try to use small words.

              A glacier surges when there is an decrease in

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Hodr ( 219920 )

          The article, and even the synopsis posted above say the glacier surge is normal and cyclical, and that the effects of global climate change may in fact cause the surge to stop or be undetectable.

          So what are your implications regarding the "fact" that the glacier is surging?

          Did you perhaps read neither the story nor the post synopsis and jump straight to the comments for an argument?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Z00L00K ( 682162 )

          So that's where my lost laxative went.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by q_e_t ( 5104099 )
      Faster movement is often because of increased temperature leading to reduced friction. I read the speed increase as entirely consistent with warming. Indeed, as expected given warming.

  • I've always been curious (Score:3)

    by bobstreo ( 1320787 ) on Sunday June 06, 2021 @09:40PM (#61461050)

    Does ice melt flow under glaciers and "lube up" the glaciers so they melt and move faster?

    • The ice under glaciers is under enormous pressure: I suspect that a very small change in temperature could allow it to flow or at least reduce its strength.

      • I'm waiting to see something like this happen with Greenland.

        • Greenland is mostly surrounded by coastal mountains, so it can only happen this way locally in a few places.

          There will be major, catastrophic melting in Antarctica and resulting rise in sea level before most of Greenland melts.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfm3 ( 830843 )
      That's partially what happens. A quote from TFA:

      "The prevailing theory of surges is that the natural advance of a glacier causes friction, which melts the deepest ice. Loose gravel traps the meltwater underneath. But as snow and ice accumulate in the glacier's higher elevations, the mass there gets top heavy. A surge redistributes that mass to lower elevations, with the meltwater serving as a lubricant that helps the glacier pick up speed as it slides downhill."

      There are two important features of glacial ice that are important here. First is that the ice is not truly solid, but acts like an extremely viscous, slow moving fluid. I guess a weird analogy would be, think about what would happen if you dumped a wheelbarrow full of bread dough down a playground slide.

      Second, and more important to mountaineering (for safety reasons) is the formation of crevasses that form as the glacier flows. Think of the tiny cracks th

  • Oops! (Score:3)

    by Randseed ( 132501 ) on Sunday June 06, 2021 @09:48PM (#61461062)
    Get Algore on the forklift again!
  • Now what? We all die?
  • Geologists also marvel at rocks so this event must be leaps and bounds above marveling to truly mind blowing.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Have you never conducted the experiment of watching the minute hand of a clock? If not, you must have attended schools that were way less boring than the ones I attended.

  • The standard way to measure the motion of glaciers has been to monitor when climbers, swept away in avalanches, pop out the bottom of the glacier, typically decades later. E.G., https://www.cambridge.org/core... [cambridge.org] (section II.2) where the Wharburton party disappeared in 1959 and reappeared in 1975, thus demonstrating that the Batura Glacier advanced about 1000 m per year.

    Don't know if this method works for surges.

  • cringeworthy (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bloodhawk ( 813939 ) on Sunday June 06, 2021 @11:46PM (#61461290)
    was interesting until they got to the cringeworthy addition of wondering whether climate change will prevent future ones. No I am not a climate change denier, but fuck me we don't need to tack it onto every story about a natural event.
    • In this instance, it wasn't an artificial addition.

      The scientists were wondering if this ~50 year periodical event would happen again, because they were unsure if the glacier would survive another 50 years.
      That's pretty legitimate.
      • It is an artificial addition. It is a scientific article which then turns to pure speculation.
        • Congrats. That's one of the dumber things I've ever heard.

          When an astrophysicist speculates about the existence of aliens, are you equally as critical?
          Or when a geneticist speculates about the long term effects of antibiotic overuse?

          Na, you don't.
          You're just pissed off because the sciencey guys speculated about something that causes you painful cognitive dissonance.
          My recommendation? Get the fuck over it. Reality doesn't give a fuck what you think, and people smarter than you are going to continue to
  • It is all fun and games when we can pay for water to drink at our home, water to irrigate our yards ⦠but imagine what life will be like when water isnâ(TM)t easily accessible. God bless Republicans.

  • If you laid down in front of a glacier, would it run you over or just push you along slowly? I'm imagining something like the steamroller scene from Austin Powers but more anticlimactic.

    • Re:can't help but wonder (Score:4, Informative)

      by dfm3 ( 830843 ) on Monday June 07, 2021 @07:45AM (#61461946) Journal
      Assuming yours was a serious question, when the toe (front end) of a glacier advances it usually pushes along large piles of loose rock called "moraine" that sort of tumble along slowly, mixing with loose ice and whatever else is in the way. So it'd be more like a bulldozer pushing a pile of boulders at a pace of a couple inches an hour. If you were there, you're more likely to get injured by tumbling rocks. Here's an example of what's called "terminal moraine" [google.com] that you can easily explore if you find yourself in Alaska.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Dareth ( 47614 )

        Is that like them horrible gravel mountains in Minecraft that try to kill you when you are mining your way thru?

Slashdot Top Deals

Living on Earth may be expensive, but it includes an annual free trip around the Sun.

Close