A Blast From the Past

A Blast from the Past

Katie Popyack, Hartwick College

Coming from New York, Alaska seemed like a mythical place; a cold area where bears and moose roam free and everyone is toughened by the climate. Two years ago, my family and I went on our “last family vacation” (according to my mom). Never would I have imagined that in two years’ time I would be back, having the adventure of a lifetime.

I first saw Alaska’s beautiful landscape from a cruise ship. The ship took the time to sail into Glacier Bay, turn off the engines, and allow us passengers to listen to the thundering of the calving ice. This was the moment I fell in love with these magnificent features. After that moment, my short time on and off the ship was dedicated to viewing any glacier I could find. In Juneau, I had the opportunity to visit the Mendenhall Visitors Center where I hiked out to Nugget Falls. There I was able to imagine the landscape hundreds of years ago, covered by ice.

Two years go by and I find myself back at the Mendenhall, viewing it from an entirely new perspective.

Setting out on the long hike to the Mendenhall Glacier, needless to say, I was excited. I didn’t know if any of the JIRP students (myself included) were ready for what we were about to experience.

Up and down we went; over hills, down steep, slippery rocks all excited to use our crampons for the first time. Over ledges that seemed impossible to climb, always looking towards the Mendenhall terminus, which seemed to be getting closer and closer.

Finally we were up close, the glacier looming over us in beautiful shades of blue and white. Hurrying to the junction of rock and ice, our first steps were tentative. For most of us, it was our first time on a glacier. We were transported into a whole new world filled with amazingly blue ice caves, deep moulins, and crevasses all around us.

And then we were off, walking the terminus of the Mendenhall, viewing things that brought us to this program in the first place. We were all there for glaciology, science, beauty, and adventure. This was our first taste of what to expect for the next two months.

Looking back down the valley, I recalled myself two years ago, viewing the Mendenhall from afar, desperately curious about glaciers. Never would I have imagined where I would be standing in just two years’ time. 

One Adventure to the Next

From Ireland to Juneau; One Adventure to the Next

By Tadhg Moore, University College of Cork

Over six thousand kilometers from home, I find myself in Southeast Alaska preparing to engage in a seven week expedition across the Juneau Icefield into British Columbia, Canada. So how on earth did I end up in this part of the world?

Well, I am currently a student of the University College of Cork (UCC) in Ireland studying Environmental Science and for my third year of study I was awarded the George J. Mitchell Peace Scholarship which gave me the opportunity to study at the University of Maine for a semester. I spent the fall semester there and had such a great time I asked to extend my stay so I got to include the spring semester. While I was there I made friends with Annie Boucher, who told me tales of her wild and exciting adventures of her summers spent in Alaska. I was enthralled but never thought I could do anything like that. She suggested that I apply and I didn’t have anything to lose. I sent in an application thinking that was as far as I was going to get and when I received the email informing me that I had been accepted, I literally jumped for joy; it was quite a memorable moment.

Then I began the mission of gathering the gear for this expedition.  I started with nothing and through the generosity of my friends and some online shopping I managed to gather all the gear and get myself set for JIRP. One of my friends, Connor Bunn, let me borrow his gear but with it he carried a condition; I had told him I was travelling to Alaska, that I’d be flying from Boston to Seattle and then onto Juneau. His response was ‘No!’. He said that I would be missing out on the whole country by just flying over it, he wanted me to travel across by land and so the seed was planted to do a cross-country journey.

Hitchhiking in Wisconsin Dells, WI. Photo by author. 

I began to formulate a plan as to how I was going to carry out this journey and I decided on hitchhiking as I had three and a half weeks and I thought it would be fun to see how far that would work. I ended up taking two trains, three buses and thirty-three rides with strangers and I arrived in Seattle the day before my flight. Before setting off I was really scared and nervous about how it was going to pan out but once I got going I became more confident and less afraid of what was to come. I really began to enjoy the idea of waking up in the morning and not knowing whether I would be travelling forty miles or four hundred miles and just meeting a variety of people who were kind enough to stop and give me a ride.

View of the Juneau Icefield from the air. Photo by author. 

Now here in Juneau with thirty one other students from all across the USA, Canada and one from Switzerland it’s exciting again to be preparing myself for another adventure. Meeting new people, travelling to new places, learning new skills and expanding my knowledge about the natural world are some of the reasons that I am getting so excited to get out on the Icefield. But I also have a couple of fears and doubts such as learning to ski and just how physically intense the program will be but I’ve come to realize not to let them get in the way and to just embrace the challenges.

Now as I look out over Auke Lake, with the Mendenhall glacier looming behind, I feel ready to begin this adventure and curious to see where it will bring me.

View from UAS Residence Hall of Auke Lake with the Mendenhall Glacier in the background. Photo by author.

Student Project: GPS Surveys on the Juneau Icefield

2015 JIRP Student Project: GPS Surveys on the Juneau Icefield

Faculty experts: Scott McGee, Surveyors, Shad O’Neel, Allen Pope.

Overview: The primary purpose of the GPS survey project is to measure the surface velocities 

and surface elevations of the glaciers on the Juneau Icefield. The GPS project also provides 

GPS support for other JIRP research projects, as needed. Collected GPS measurements are 

evaluated against previous years’ GPS records to determine spatial and temporal changes in 

the morphology and behavior of the Juneau Icefield’s glaciers.

Level 1 students will learn the basics of GPS and will participate in collecting GPS survey 

data. They will learn how to set up a differential GPS system and will operate a rover GPS to 

collect data on one or several standard survey profiles. Level 1 students’ involvement will be 

limited to the summer field season and they are not expected to perform advanced analysis of 

GPS data nor compile a student report related to their GPS work.

Level 2 students will be exposed to the same aspects as Level 1 students. In addition, Level 2 

students will form the core GPS team, which entails going out on GPS surveys daily 

throughout the summer field season. Level 2 students will learn and perform detailed 

analysis and presentation of GPS data. It is expected that Level 2 students will compile a 

group report of their summer GPS field work, to be turned in near the end of the fall 

semester.

GPS Projects: Following are GPS projects that will be conducted during JIRP 2015:

A. Surface Velocity. Transverse profiles on the Taku Glacier system will be surveyed 

multiple times in order to determine surface velocity and direction of movement

(Levels 1 and 2). Results will then be compared with data collected in previous years 

to determine if, and where, changes in the flow regime have occurred (Level 2).

B. Surface Elevation. Transverse and longitudinal profiles on the Lemon Creek Glacier 

and the Taku Glacier system will be surveyed in order to determine surface elevation

(Levels 1 and 2). Results will be compared with data collected in previous years to 

determine if, and where, changes in the surface elevation and gradient of the glaciers 

have occurred (Level 2).

C. Strain Rates. Profile 4 on the Taku Glacier is comprised of two parallel lines with the 

survey points offset so as to form a series of triangles across the width of the glacier. 

Multiple surveys of this profile will be performed (Levels 1 and 2), allowing the 

computation of strain rates. Results will be compared to strain rates from previous 

years in order to discern possible changes in the flow regime of the main trunk of the 

Taku Glacier (Level 2).

Timeline and Logistics: GPS surveys will commence during the last half of the Camp 17 

occupation and will continue for the following six weeks. During this time, the survey team 

will be in the field every day, spending 6 to 8 hours performing GPS surveys. Surveys on the 

Lemon Creek Glacier are conducted via ski. Due to the large geographic extent of the profiles 

on the Taku Glacier system, those surveys will be done via snowmobile. Faculty experts will 

supervise the field work, with students operating the GPS system and recording data. Data 

will be processed in camp, with basic results being used for the student project presentations 

in Atlin and Juneau at the end of the field season. In-depth data processing and presentation 

(Level 2) will take place as part of the student’s group project report, due near the end of the 

fall semester.

References (numbered by priority, i.e. study #1 first, #10 last):

1. Annual JIRP GPS Survey Reports, Crevassezone.org, http://crevassezone.org/reports-GPS.htm

2. JIRP Survey Overview, Crevassezone.org, http://crevassezone.org/tutorials/JIRP-Survey-
Overview.pdf and http://crevassezone.org/tutorials/JIRP-Survey-Overview.pptx

3. Calculating Glacier Movement Vectors, Crevassezone.org, 

http://crevassezone.org/tutorials/Glacier-Movement-Vectors.pdf

4. Basics of the Global Positioning System, Trimble, Inc., http://www.trimble.com/gps_tutorial/

5. Global Positioning System, Wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

6. Application of GPS in Glaciology, by Matt King, Encyclopedia of Snow, Ice, and Glaciers (V.P. 

Singh, P. Singh, U.K. Haritashya, editors). http://crevassezone.org/tutorials/Application-of-GPS-
in-Glaciology.pdf

7. Glacier Monitoring Techniques, Ronald D. Karpilo, Jr., Department of Geosciences, Colorado 

State University, http://www.nature.nps.gov/geology/monitoring/files/geomon-06.pdf

8. Response of Glacier Basal Motion to Transient Water Storage, by Timothy Bartholomaus, 

Robert Anderson, Suzanne Anderson. Nature Geoscience, Vol. 1, Jan. 2008. 

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.52.html and 

http://crevassezone.org/tutorials/Glacier-Basal-Motion.pdf

9. Direct Observations of Evolving Subglacial Drainage Beneath the Greenland Ice Sheet, by 

Lauren C. Andrews, Ginny A. Catania, Matthew J. Hoffman, Jason D. Gulley, Martin P. Lüthi, Claudia 

Ryser, Robert L. Hawley & Thomas A. Neumann. Nature 514, 80–83 (October 2, 2014).

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v514/n7520/full/nature13796.html

10. The Terrestrial Reference Frame and the Dynamic Earth, EOS, Vol. 82, No. 25, June 19, 2001, 

pp. 273-284. http://crevassezone.org/tutorials/ITRF.pdf

Juneau Ice Field - 1965: The Science Experience to Last a Lifetime

By Thomas A. Herbert, Ph.D., P.G.

The Story:

This is a field science story of learning to work with a small team of individuals on projects that have merit and impact. This story is told looking back through the telescope after 49 years of other professional experiences with the intent of stressing the value of that first summer in 1965.

Background:

I am a geologist and was destined to be a geologist. My father, grandfather, and great grandfather were mining engineers so my post natal education began with discussions on rocks, oil fields, ores, and coal mines from my first recollections. I was born and grew up in Rock Island, Illinois, living on the Rock River so in retrospect I could have picked a geology career track in any subcategory from petrology to geomorphology.

I was fortunate to be offered a full scholarship for track at Michigan State University (MSU) in 1962 and went off to throw the discus and shot. We won several Big Ten championships when I was an undergraduate. The coaches all wanted me to take the jock courses to keep my grades up to give me time to train. My first quarter in 1962 had me in a really dumb jock course so I started to look for courses that would be interesting. I landed in Physical Geology 201 in the winter quarter of 1963 and did well. Spring quarter of 1964 had me in Geomorphology 303 with Dr. Maynard M. Miller. I was hooked on the science and on Dr. Miller’s engaging academic style and stories of doing science on Mount Everest. I declared a major in geology and began assembling knowledge in an organized fashion.

In March 1964 the Good Friday Earthquake hit Alaska and Dr. Miller packed his several Nikon F cameras, his red Eddie Bauer parka, Lowa boots and headed to the action for an expedition to evaluate damage and changes to the coastal glaciers. By fall quarter he was back in East Lansing with many slide trays depicting coastal glaciers laden with land slide debris and discussing incipient kinematic waves. I was enrolled in his Glacial Geology 412 class and it was all action science with new information from Alaska.

My big day was when Dr. Miller asked if I wanted to go for the 1965 field season on the Juneau Ice Field as a National Science Foundation undergraduate research participant. There was no question that I wanted to go and my father jumped in with his checkbook to cover all the purchases from Eddie Bauer and REI. An interesting side note is that my REI number in 1965 was only five digits long meaning I was buying gear from the beginning of that greatly successful recreational equipment company.

Field camp is required for geology students between junior and senior year in most programs. I petitioned the MSU Geology Department to accept the Summer JIRP work for my field camp requirement and was approved with the caveat that I would need to write several papers as directed independent study (DIS) for the 12 credits I would take. I was encouraged by the department chairman to engage in as many diverse tasks as possible to give me a broad field experience (Duh, how could that not happen on the Ice Field?). In retrospect it was sort of like a “self-directed” field camp. Dad got me up to Alaska early in June by plane and I stayed late that summer since MSU didn’t start fall quarter until the third week of September. Several of the MSU JIRP team drove the Alaska Highway in the 1963 VW bus that was early JIRP transportation. I got to Juneau early, stayed late, and was able to do some extra tasks.

Before the science adventure started the MSU Track Team won the Big Ten championship on May 26 and I did well in the discus setting the MSU record. I learned later from Barry Prather that Dr. Miller really wanted me for my lifting and toting abilities to schlep equipment. Barry had worked in a toting role for Dr. Miller on both the Everest (1963) and Mount Kennedy (1965) Expeditions and I think the muscular athlete roll worked well for Dr. Miller’s plans. Barry was a Dartmouth footballer who later was my office mate in grad school at MSU. I was awed by his record of climbing to 28,000’+ on Everest staging gear for the ascent team.

The Gear:

I admit to being a gear nut. My family and colleagues know that I stand ready to give a full discourse on the merits of field equipment. This character flaw has its root in the preparation for JIRP in 1965. There have been many improvements in clothing, foot gear, packs and rainwear. But the most important and symbolic gear item is the hat (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Gurka hat in place ready for the adventure to start

Hat selection – I picked a Gurka bush hat with wide brim to keep off the sun at altitude and the occasional rain. In my professional geology career the bush hat has been retired to the field gear box and replaced by several Tilley hats. My pick for the Alaska summer season would be a narrow brim Tilley.

Camera – I went off with a 35 mm Minolta rangefinder and about 30 rolls of film and mailers to send the exposed rolls off for processing. I bought additional rolls and shot about 1600 slides of which about 600 have been scanned at this writing. As a side note more than 500 nearly identical photos of the Taku Towers have been tossed.

At Dr. Miller’s suggestion and later in 1966, I purchased a Nikon F and a couple lenses. That camera is still in the case along with a Nikon F3, 8008, underwater Nikon and presently about five Nikon digital cameras. My pick for a summer field season would be a small pocket digital with 20 megapixels and a cheaper backup camera with batteries. Small is good for field cameras and backups are handy. Digital video is a good backup too. Also, you can record field observations on the audio track of the video… just in case you forget your field notebook. As Dr. Miller told me early on, a durable and high end camera is your best choice for field work. I definitely concur. All these cameras have been used for my work recording tens of thousands of frames. What we do as geologists is observe and record and explain what we have seen to others.

Foot gear – I had two pairs of Danner leather boots that I coated in layers of Snow Seal. Bad choice on boots, because after I stepped off the Hiller 12E at Camp 10 on June 21 into deep, wet snow I had wet feet for the rest of the summer. See Figure 1 for un-soaked boots.  I screwed up on socks too with cotton. Every night was a process of socks drying in the foot of the Bauer bag. Every boot company now has sealed and water proof boots and wicking socks of wonderful fibers so that won’t be a problem for future JIPRers.

Pack – I got the biggest oversized Kelty frame, frame extension and bag that was made then. I had six extra side pockets and two big back pockets sewn on. That pack worked for soft good and loose gear and the frame took a Blazo box of two 5 gallon gas tins for many trips up to Camp 10. We lugged full-sized wet cell car batteries around on the frame for the photogrammetry work too. Other than having battery acid eat up my pants, I never had a problem with the pack frame or bag. There are many designs today and most will work but big volume is better. After I finished my Ph.D. in 1973 at MSU I gave Dr. Miller the Kelty for his gear and I know he used it for years.

Parka – I had the Everest down Eddie Bauer Karakorum in red, the standard field jacket of the day. That type of down jacket is great if you are standing around watching drilling rigs in the winter at -5 which I did later in northern Michigan. For the Icefield, however, layers of Polartec or equivalent would be better since the temperature range is wide and in the summer 35 degrees is about as low as it went. You can regulate heat/cold better with Polartec type materials and it performs when wet. Dr. Miller was the recipient of the parka and in size XL he had plenty of room for layers.

Sleeping gear – I had the extra-long extra-large Karakorum bag that worked great particularly at Camp 8. I had a closed cell foam, three quarter length pad and a rubber sheet. We were sleeping on snow for the 10 days at the Ice Fall and the pad worked great until I rolled off. Dr. Miller also got the mummy bag when I moved to Florida in 1973. Joan chided me on that gifting because the bag had never been cleaned from 1965-1973 so it still had some Icefield grunge on it.

Ice axe – Bought from REI and gifted to Bill Isherwood for his trip to the South Pole in 1966. I have a picture of the ice axe (living vicariously through an ice axe!!!!) at the pole.

Crampons – 12 point deluxe models from REI and also went to the South Pole with Isherwood.

Binoculars – I bought a 7x35 pair just in case I might need them. They were bulky and took up pack space but they were invaluable in the surveying work picking up control stations and flagging across the ice. Dr. Adam Chrzanowski took over the binoculars for his survey spotting. They now reside in my gear bag for the shooting range.

Dr. Adam Chrzanowski at Mendenhall control point … note my binocular case around his neck.

Knife – I had a Swiss Army knife with a bunch of blades, tooth pick and tweezers. The knife is still in my field kit but the can opener is worn out. Swiss knives are always a good choice.

Pants – I had cotton rip stop military surplus cargo pants in 1965. Now I wear Tactical 911 rip stop synthetic fabric cargo pants and they are the best choice. I would wear them in AK.

Shirts – I wore MSU cotton athletic tees until they were totally grubby. I recommend Under Armor of several weights to layer up if needed. The fabric wicks and packs small.

GPS – No such luck in 1965 but today one is handy with extra batteries. The cheap ones seem to be as accurate for field work as the expensive survey quality gear. Don’t leave home without one.

Summer Activities Schedule 1965:

Scoping the Project Area:

I arrived in Juneau on June 12, 1965, and soon met up with Chris Egan (then a MSU doctoral student with two ice field summers under his belt) and we began limited exploring of Juneau and the Mendenhall terminus on foot. We used the UAK Marine Lab as a base and temporary bunk room. We chartered a Cessna from Kenny Loken at Channel Flying Service (Dad came through with some extra cash for the flight) and did a flying recon of the entire area in a Cessna 185 float plane before we went in the field. This flight was a great synoptic view of the project area. Now we have Google Earth and other imagery to give us scientists the big picture but then it was topo maps and 9x9 B&W aerials. We flew south over Taku Lodge and up the Taku Glacier to C10 and C8 and over towards Atlin and then back over the Vaughn Lewis Icefall, down the Gilkey following the medial moraines down glacier back to tidewater and back to Juneau. I shot about 10 of my 30 rolls of film on that flight.

Chris Egan exploring Mendenhall terminus June 16, 1965

Preparing Camp 10:

We reported to Livingston Helicopters early on June 21 and loaded our gear on the floats of a Hiller 12E (Figure 1). Nancy Livingston was the pilot for this my first helicopter flight. Nancy was about 45 years old then, tall and really strong. Her flight experience made me feel very safe. Not only did she have thousands of hours in helicopters but Nancy had been a ferry pilot in WWII flying P-47s and P51s and about 50 other aircraft around England.

Dick Shaw, Chris Egan and I flew into Camp 10 to find about 8-10 feet of wet snow covering the rocks with the cook shack, generator shack and the teaching building pretty much buried. We had to dig down to get into the doors. There was a snowmobile garage that had been built late in 1964 that was unfinished and not structurally sound for snow loads. We had to dig out the snow machines from a collapsed structure then get everything running.

Arriving Camp 10 June 22, 1965

 The weather for the next 12 days was sunshine and hot and the snow was melting at a rate of feet per day. By the time the full team arrived on July 3 the nunatak was snow free around the camp. We began recording met data beginning on the 20th and recorded some glorious days.

Chris Egan at the met shelter, 10 PM, June 26, 1965

On July 3, the Alaska Air Guard C-123J landed a mile or so out on the Taku snow pack on ski wheels. Personnel and gear was off loaded. I was the lone passenger for the flight back to Juneau that day and it was an “interesting flight.” The C-123J was about four miles above the neve line and General William Elmore, USAF (pilot and commanding general of the AK Air Guard) decided to take off down glacier (and downwind with katabatic tail wind at about 10-15 mph). The wet snow landing and taxiing had packed the ski wheels with extra weight. The two radial engines were run up as we started down glacier; the two jet engines on the wing tips were started for extra power. We ran for several miles and could not get takeoff speed to lift off, all the time we were bumping and slewing over the sun cupped surface. I was belting in next to the crew chief in the cargo bay. After a couple minutes when I’m sure General Elmore and his copilot Col. McKee, USAF, could see the crevasses in the distance he alerted the crew chief to the next move. The chief, T/Sgt. Wm. Christy USAF, yelled at me over the din something like … “son, tighten up you seat belt and hang on for a ride”. General Elmore engaged the JATO unit that rocket launched us up to several hundred feet above the snow. Now we were in the air in an empty plane with plenty of power to fly. The next problem was that the ski wheels would not retract since the three miles of takeoff run had packed the wheel wells with more snow. We flew to Juneau airport with the ski wheels down with the General cycling the gear to dislodge the snow. We circled Juneau for about an hour while the General continued to clear the ski wheels. He was able to get the wheels partially deployed but the huge skis (I estimate at 5’ by 18’ aluminum panels) would not fully retract so the skis and wheels were both down for the landing and everything was packed with snow. I bet this type of landing was not in the C-123J operating manual before this incident. Again the crew chief told me to hold on and we landed with some minor sounds of metal scraping. The loading ramp was dropped and I kissed the ground and marched off to a new task. We had landed with the crash trucks deployed; scraping the aluminum skis but all went well.

Alaska Air Guard C-123J on the Taku Plateau; July 3, 1965

Loading for Juneau return: Left to Right: Dick Shaw, Barry Prather, Scott Hulse, Dennis Cowals and Bonito Colqui (orange hat)

Terrestrial Photogrammetry:

My next adventure job was to be the chief gear schlepper and toter for three professors from the University of New Brunswick (UNB) Surveying Engineering Department. I had taken Dr. Miller’s photogrammetry and geology course and was very interested in that topic. I had about 14 days of intense and extremely “hands on” work with these fellows. I have used that knowledge nearly every day for the past 48 years of my geology career.

The UNB team included Dr. Godfried Konecny, Professor Gerhardt Gloss, and Dr. Adam Chrzanowski. Their project was to obtain terrestrial photo images for plotting of the ice surface near the terminus of the Mendenhall, Taku and Norris glaciers. To accomplish this we had to establish geospatial positions for known points on the peaks overlooking each terminus and ground control points. This was “back in the day” when we had distance and angles to establish control points and image stations.

The images were stereo pairs on glass photographic plates from a base line established on the mountain side. The base line was several hundred meters long with an image at each end. The plates were exposed and later taken back to UNB for stereo plotting of the contours. The scientific carry forward is that the 1965 JIRP ice volume studies were the starting point accurately tracking ice volume changes in the system as early documented data for climate studies.

The Mendenhall work started with a set up over the geodetic monument at the Juneau Airport which had a clear view direct line to the top of Mt. McGinnis. We set up a Tellurometer Micro Distancer M/RA1 (made in South Africa) which we used to measure distance. The instrument had been on the market for about two years so we were “cutting edge.” The instrument used phase shifts in the modulation of micro waves. This was a new science toy in 1965 that Dr. Konecny was eager to use. We measured the distance to a monument on Mt. McGinnis that I constructed with a clear view down to the ice. I drove a steel pin and later built a rock cairn over it.  We used a Wild T-2 to measure angles from the airport and swung to the other end of the stereo baseline. Then a Wild P-30 photo theodolite was set up on the mountain side at each end of the base centered over the control points to take the images. The logistics for this work was the 12E with Arlo Livingston flying. We also had a second vantage point from the cirque bowl (ski bowl) on the south side and established a second base line and took photos. All of the points were established with steel pins I drove in the rock and then built about 4-foot high cairns over them. We had great weather and this Mendenhall work took about five days.

Dr. Konecny and myself (in the hat) using the Tellurometer to tie back to the Juneau Airport geodetic monument

The Taku and Norris work was conducted from a base camp at Taku Lodge where we stayed for several days. There was a geodetic monument near the lodge that we set up on with the Tellurometer and the T-2 and took control up to the peaks south of the channel and looking at both ice fronts. Arlo flew in to assist with some ground control work on the outwash in front of the ice where we had other monuments and good shots back to the peaks to the south. These were some long legs in the survey net where we had distance shots of 5-10 miles.

Dr. Konecny set up on peak above Taku Lodge to cover Taku/Norris terminus

There were two notable experiences in Juneau for the few days we were billeting there for the photogrammetry work. First off was a note to me later in 1965 from Joan after the bills were paid for the summer. We had been eating at a restaurant around the corner from the Red Dog every morning and sometimes in the evening. Joan noted that I ate some expensive meals. I was just a growing boy on expense account!

The second experience came at a quiet little bar across the street from the Red Dog. I had turned 21 several months before so I went in for a beer one evening. I was nursing my one beer at the bar when two fellows in more formal dress than my field gear came in and sat down next to me and struck up a conversation. Being the naïve youngster I asked the gentlemen next to me “and what do you do?”  He replied, I’m the governor and this is my assistant and we come here for a drink after work. It was William Egan who was a friend of Dr. Miller who had requested Mal’s help on the damage assessments following the 1964 quake. Governor Egan later was a significant political player in national politics and was a key player in getting the Alaska North Slope oil resources developed.  

Seismographic Studies Below Camp 10:

I finished the work with the UNB team on July 16, 1965, and flew with Arlo in the 12E from Taku Lodge to Camp 10 just skimming the crevasses on the flight. The altitude change is about 5,000 feet over that distance and Arlo was climbing all the way. At one point he turned to me and asked how much I weighed because the Lycoming engine was starting to heat up. I told him about 260. He figured with all the supplies and my gear and weight we were probably a bit overloaded for the flight.

Upon arrival I was assigned to packing duties toting gas cans and lumber up the hill to the camp. I learned that toting heavy loads at even 5,500 feet can be hard. I came in a distant third to Scott Hulse and Richard Carlson. I was the bulky strong body type and they both were lean, mean and great climbers.

I was assigned to assist Dr. Tom Poulter, Director Emeritus of Stanford Research Institute, in conducting seismic traverses of the area of the Taku near Camp 10. We were using the Poulter Method of shooting that he had developed for reflection shooting in the Antarctic in the 1930s and 1940s. The energy sources were small portions of stick dynamite on a stainless steel pole detonated to create an air burst. Poulter would cut the sticks of dynamite with his pocket knife and affix with cap with early duct tape to the pole. The twelve or so recording geophones were placed in a line and detonated. Poulter lectured on explosives, safety, handling and the theory of seismic wave propagation. When we ran low on explosives Kenny Loken airdropped several cases of dynamite and another of detonating caps. This was an air drop where the packages were pushed to the door to free fall to the snow.

Dr. Tom Poulter (right) checking the seismic record on the Taku plateau; Barry Prather in sunglasses is also reading the printout; Poulter seismic shooting pole next to him

I had several life experiences with Dr. Poulter that I can relate. He was a large man at about 6’4” and 240 pounds and he was 68 at the time he was very fit. I use him as my model for fitness today since I am 71 now myself. One evening sitting at Camp 10 near the met station I had an hour one-on-one discussion with him in his mentoring role. I asked the naïve question of him … “what did you do during WWII?” He responded that his role had been classified work at Los Alamos and that he had designed the shape charges of conventional explosive to detonate the first atomic bomb. The task was to create the spherical charge to force the critical mass together. He explained that the timing through the electrical circuit was the secret to success. His solution was very practical … trial and error cutting the silver not copper wire with electrician’s pliers until it worked.  

I have assisted oil companies with seismic projects for the past 40 years. The Poulter Method is still used in various situations around the world where shot hole drilling is difficult. I even had an oil company geophysicist ask me if I knew anything about “Pouter Shooting” wherein I proudly reported that I had learned seismic prospecting from the man himself on the Ice Field.

Camp 8:

I finished seismic work in late July and one evening headed to Camp 8. We arrived after midnight and crossed the bergschrund on the snow bridge and on to the bedrock. The next morning our trail had collapsed into the “schrund.”

My Camp 8 stay was for about a week and I made some lasting friends. Dick Shaw from MSU was there and he later was an office mate in grad school. Dick spent decades with Exxon and now is a consultant in Denver. We crossed paths about a year ago in a professional capacity on oil field development. Bill Patzert was at Purdue and headed for University of Hawaii; he later became a guru on ocean dynamics at Scripps and is now with JPL. Bill Isherwood of Antarctic fame was there along with Dennis Cowles, Chris Egan and Scott Hulse. Ty Kittridge went back in the Army Special Forces in Vietnam where he was a true silver star hero.

My most notable feat at Camp 8 was eating a case of 24 chocolate Mountain bars in two days. Then we moved to the Ice Fall for several days.

Camp 8 July 25, 1965; the team lounging include Scott Hulse and Bill Patzert (sunbathing on the roof), Bill Isherwood (back to camera with pack), Chris Egan (red shirt seated behind solarimeter) Ty Kittridge (seated on rock with his Bull Mastiff “Siggy”) and Dennis Cowels (red socks)

Vaughn Lewis Ice Fall:

We traveled to the Ice Fall late one evening and stayed in the army squad tent on the outcrop at the top of the Ice Fall. The group included Bill Isherwood, Bill Patzert, Ty Kittridge and his dog Siggy and myself. We climbed down the snow and rock and camped on one of the wave ogives. We spent three days conducting masters thesis research on movement rates for Ty. We did a lot of walking and climbing. Siggy the Bull Mastiff at 160 pounds was eating more canned stew and hash than the entire human group so we had to climb out to resupply.

Camping on the wave ogives on the Gilkey Glacier July 29, 1965; Bill Patzert checking the tent, Siggy looking for food, Bill Isherwood checking seismic geophones, and Ty Kittridge smoking his last Picayune cigarette.

Back to Civilization:

Once back to the ice plateau we motored back to Camp 10 where several of us had the task of securing the buildings for winter and heavy snow. We drained fuel from the snowmobiles and generator and picked up loose gear and trash. We burned the trash with the aid of some extra generator gas. As I recall, in 1965 the main body of the summer team marched down the Taku to tidewater and in later years I think the team marches down to Atlin. I had neither option since I had been on the cleanup crew. We flew out with Arlo Livingston back to Douglas Island and his aerodrome.

Back to school August 15, 1965

Then ‘til Now ... the Next 50 Years:

There is not a single day that I do not think about the Ice Field and the guys I was with that summer. There were no females back in the day. I finished BS in record time before my sports eligibility was completed so I was a scholar-athlete in 1966. I worked for five years drilling holes for the Michigan Highway Department and sorting/identifying rocks for concrete aggregate and went to school full time. The MS was finished in 1968 and I switched to the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources in 1969 for a PhD in Resource Development that was finished in 1973. The doctoral work focused on law, public policy and geologic processes. Dr. Miller was on my committee and greatly assisted in defense and editing in his usual giving manner. I moved to Florida and worked five years for the Florida Legislature on natural resource issues as a staff director and science adviser where I learned how scientists and politicians interact. During that time Dr. Miller moved to Idaho and was involved as the State Geologist in phosphate mining there. I had just helped pass comprehensive mine reclamation legislation in 1975,  for Florida’s phosphate industry and I was able to help Mal with background information.  Since 1978, my spouse, Dr. Linda Lampl, and I have been in the consulting business covering a host of topics in the sciences. See more at www.lampl-herbert.com. For more than 25 years I have helped the Florida State University geology program in an adjunct professor role. If anyone needs an interesting graduate program the newly assembled Department of Earth, Oceans and Atmospheric Sciences is a wonderful place to learn about the planet.

And, to the chagrin of my old friends and associates, most of my good stories start with the glaciers moving down the mountain.

Be safe!

 Editor's Note: Are you a former JIRPer with stories or photos to share? Please be in touch by email if you would like to help us tell the JIRP story: fger.jirp@gmail.com

Student Project: Radio-Glaciology Measurements of the Juneau Icefield

2015 JIRP Student Project: Radio-Glaciology measurements of the Juneau Icefield

Faculty experts: Seth Campbell, Shad O’Neel

Overview: Each year, annual “point” measurements of mass gain (accumulation of snow) and mass loss (ablation) are collected across the Juneau Icefield (JIF) to assess whether it is gaining or losing mass (a concept known as mass balance).  These measurements are added to a 50+ year continuous record of mass balance on the Juneau Icefield.  The primary goal of the radio-glaciology project is to incorporate geophysical measurements from ground-penetrating radar (GPR) into determining spatial variability of glacier snow, firn, and ice as they relate to mass balance of the JIF.  We will use GPR to complete several objectives to include:

1.      Spatially extrapolating point measurement of winter accumulation across the JIF.

2.      Comparing winter accumulation determined from GPR data collected in 2012 with winter accumulation determined from GPR data collected in 2015.

3.      Assessing dimension changes in firn layers buried below the winter accumulation by comparing GPR profiles collected in 2015 and 2012.

4.      Assessing temporal changes in water content within the snow, firn, and ice  

Level 1 students are not expected to continue their work beyond the summer field camp unless computations and write up are not completed during summer. Level 2 students should expect to continue to work on data analysis beyond the summer season, with a more detailed analysis and report turned in near the end of fall semester.

A.      Snow accumulation. Snowpits will be excavated at several (15-25) established locations on Taku and Lemon Creek glaciers to the depth of the previous summer surface. In each pit a density profile will be computed and plotted as part of the annual mass balance program. The pits will be used as depth ground-truth for GPR profiles which are collected via snowmobile and/or ski on 5-50 km long transects across the icefield.  The GPR profiles will be used to extrapolate point measurement snow pit winter mass balance information across the ice field. (Level 1&2).  Level 1 students will provide accumulation thickness estimates from GPR and snow pit ground truth information. And qualitatively compare those measurements with similar data collected in 2012.  Level 2 students will convert winter accumulation thicknesses to snow water equivalence while estimating uncertainties in SWE measurements from instrument errors and from melt by using a supplied degree day model. 

B.      Firn evolution. Approximately 150 km of GPR profiles were collected across Taku Glacier in 2012 and show multiple layers of firn below the winter accumulation.  Here we propose to repeat collection of 2012 profiles in 2015 to compare firn layer dimensions and estimate changes relative to time (Level 1&2).  Level 1 students will qualitatively infer dimensions changes of firn layers using minimal ground-truth.  Level 2 students will attempt to quantitatively infer changes and incorporate multi-year snow pits (digging into and providing ground-truth at least into last year’s firn) into the study. 

C.      Snow Melt Study.  Snow accumulated on a glacier surface in the winter experiences significant melt through the summer season in temperate glacier environments.  As the surface snow melts, water percolates into deeper layers.  We are interested in determining how much melt occurs and where the melt travels to over the time because water content and snow density both play significant roles in the calculation of snow water equivalence in a snowpack using GPR.  Questions remain regarding how much melt stays within the winter snow pack after surface melt occurs and how much melt percolates into deeper firn and ice layers.  Here we will use advanced geophysical techniques such as migration, common midpoint (CMP) and Wide angle refraction and reflection (WARR) surveys to estimate changes in water content relative to time.  Available meteorological and snowpit data will be incorporated into this study to estimate meteorological impacts on melt and compare radar derived estimates of water content with field observations.  (Level 2).

Timeline and logistics: These studies can be completed in conjunction with snowpit excavations during the mass balance studies (with 2-3 days/week spent in the field).  The radar teams will use either snowmobile or skis to tow the radar systems for A&B.  Study C will be performed at one easily accessible location near Camp 10 through the course of the program.  For longer GPR transects, project members will travel to places where most students will not. Students should expect at least 1-2 days per week in camp processing data. New data will be collected, processed and preliminary interpretations made. Additionally, student reports will use other supplied data sets such as prior GPR profiles, meteorological, and snow pit data.  Several software programs will be used for analyses including radar processing, GIS (e.g. ArcGIS), and programming software (e.g. MATLAB). 

References (numbered by priority, i.e. study #1 first, #10 last):

(1)   Woodward J and Burke MJ (2007) Applications of Ground-Penetrating Radar to Glacial and Frozen Materials. J. Environ. Engineering Geophys., 1(12), 69–85

(2)   Bingham RG and Siegert MJ (2007) Radio-Echo Sounding Over Polar Ice Masses. J. Environmental and Engineering Geophysics, 1(12), 47–62

(3)   Spikes VB, Hamilton GS, Arcone SA, Kaspari S, Mayewski, PA (2004) Variability in accumulation rates from GPR profiling on the West Antarctic plateau. Ann. Glaciol., 39(1), 238-244

(4)   Kohler J, Moore J, Kennett M, Engeset R and Elvehoy H (1997) Using ground-penetrating radar to image previous years’ summer surfaces for mass-balance measurements. Ann. Glaciol.,  24, 355-360.

(5)   Arcone SA (2002) Airborne-radar stratigraphy and electrical structure of temperate firn: Bagley Ice Field, Alaska, U.S.A. J. Glaciol., 48(161), 317-334

(6)   Arcone SA and Yankielun NE (2000) 1.4 GHz radar penetration and evidence of drainage structures in temperate ice: Black Rapids Glacier, Alaska, U.S.A. J. Glaciol. 46(154), 477-490

(7)   Bradford JH, Harper JT, Brown J (2009) Complex dielectric permittivity measurements from ground-penetrating radar data to estimate snow liquid water content in the pendular regime. Water Resources Research. 45(8), 12 p 

Student Project: Icefield Reflectance and Albedo

2015 JIRP Student Project: Icefield Reflectance and Albedo

Faculty Experts: Allen Pope

Overview: Surface reflectance (sometimes called albedo, although if you choose this project you will learn why that isn’t strictly accurate) is an important property for understanding how much melt energy a glacier is absorbing. The Icefield reflectance project will use a field spectroradiometer to measure the spectral reflectance of glacier surfaces, studying the spatial and temporal variability of glacier spectral reflectance and albedo. Students will develop questions relating to processes that influence surface reflectance and design data collection strategies accordingly. Some suggestions are given below. The goal of this project is a better understanding of temporal and spatial variability in Icefield reflectance.

Level 1 students are not expected to continue their work beyond the summer field camp unless computations and write up are not completed during summer.

Level 2 students should expect to continue to work on data analysis beyond the summer season, with a more detailed analysis and report turned in near the end of fall semester.

Project breakdown:

Spectral reflectance: This is the basic unit of all subsequent projects. Radiance and irradiance measurements will be collected and students will process these data into reflectance spectra. Students will choose a range of locations and times to understand the spatial and temporal variability in glacier surface reflectance. Levels 1 & 2

Albedo: The next step beyond reflectance spectra, students will incorporate spectral reflectance and irradiance measurements to calculate glacier surface albedo. Students will investigate temporal and spatial variability in albedo resulting from changing illumination conditions and surface properties. Levels 1 & 2

Grain size studies: Students will study temporal and spatial variability in snow grain size by comparing direct observations using a snow card with calculations based on measured reflectance spectra. Level 2 {Possibly level 1}

Impurities: Students will investigate the impact that impurities (dirt/dust/soot) have on spectral reflectance (and albedo). Students can design controlled experiments or locate appropriate natural study sites. Levels 1 & 2

Compare with remote sensing: Understand how your point data scale up to reflectance measurements from airborne and satellite remote sensing measurements. Level 1 students will learn how to directly compare with satellite imagery. Level 2 students will have the opportunity to compare with 2015 observations and design a larger experiment.

Link with energy balance: Join forces with the energy balance modeling project to understand what your albedo measurements mean for surface mass balance. Level 2

Advisor’s Note: I focus on glacial remote sensing, so I focus on pointing the field spectroradiometer at snow and ice. If you’re interested in looking at other reflectance spectra (rocks, algae, or something else), that is something I’m open to, too!

Timeline and Logistics: There are two main constraints on this project: availability of the field spectroradiometer and appropriate weather for data collection. The field spectroradiometer should be available for at least two weeks in mid July, and possibly in early/late July (depending on shipping constraints), but there is nothing we can do about the weather except hope it is good! The field spectroradiometer and controlling laptop need to be charged every night, so fieldwork will be based out of camps, but travel with skis and possibly snowmobiles will be incorporated as the science necessitates it. Locations and frequency of data collection will be determined by student interest. Preliminary analysis will be conducted in camp. Further data collections will then be planned.

References (in approximate order of priority):

1. McArthur, A., 2007. “ASD Collection and Processing Guides,” NERC Field Spectroscopy Facility.

2. Skiles, M., 2015. Snow Optics Lab Protocols.

3. Hendriks, J, and P. Pellikka. “Estimation of Surface Reflectances from Hintereisferner: Spectrometer Measurements and Satellite-Derived Reflectances.” Zeitschrift Für Gletscherkunde Und Glazialgeologie 38, no. 2 (2004): 139–54.

4. Pope, A., and W. G. Rees. “Using in Situ Spectra to Explore Landsat Classification of Glacier Surfaces.” Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation 27A (2014): 42–52. doi:10.1016/j.jag.2013.08.007.

5. Gardner, A. S., and M. J. Sharp. “A Review of Snow and Ice Albedo and the Development of a New Physically Based Broadband Albedo Parameterization.” Journal of Geophysical Research-Earth Surface 115 (2010): F01009.

6. Schaepman-Strub, G., et al. “Reflectance Quantities in Optical Remote Sensing - Definitions and Case Studies.” Remote Sensing of Environment 103, no. 1 (2006): 27–42. doi:10.1016/j.rse.2006.03.002.

7. Takeuchi, N. “Temporal and Spatial Variations in Spectral Reflectance and Characteristics of Surface Dust on Gulkana Glacier, Alaska Range.” Journal of Glaciology 55, no. 192 (2009): 701–9.

8.  Greuell, W, C. H. Reijmer, and J. Oerlemans. “Narrowband-to-Broadband Albedo Conversion for Glacier Ice and Snow Based on Aircraft and near-Surface Measurements.” Remote Sensing of Environment 82 (2002): 48–63.

9. Nolin, A, W., and J. Dozier. “A Hyperspectral Method for Remotely Sensing the Grain Size of Snow.” Remote Sensing of Environment 74, no. 2 (2000): 207–16. doi:10.1016/S0034-4257(00)00111-5.

10. Dumont, M. et al. “Contribution of Light-Absorbing Impurities in Snow to Greenland/’s Darkening since 2009.” Nature Geoscience 7, no. 7 (2014): 509–12. doi:10.1038/ngeo2180.

11. Painter, T. H., and J. Dozier. “Measurements of the Hemispherical-Directional Reflectance of Snow at Fine Spectral and Angular Resolution.” Journal of Geophysical Research 109 (2004): 21 PP. doi:200410.1029/2003JD004458.

Student Project: Geobotany, Nunatak and Periglacial Ecology and Entomology

2015 JIRP Student Project: Geobotany, Nunatak and Periglacial Ecology and Entomology 

Faculty experts: Alan Fryday, Karen Dillman, Saewan Koh, David Hik, Sean Schoville, Polly Bass

Overview of Projects and Goals:

The ecological research of the Juneau Icefield Research Program is important on a global scale. The nunatak and periglacial habitats provide information on the impact of climate change on high latitude alpine habitats.  Work to date has indicated a 68% species increase since the time of first historical work in nunatak habitats of this region. 

Baseline observations allow for monitoring future changes. Threatened species, range extensions, and invasive species have been observed on the nunataks.  Study of the periglacial and nunatak habitats of the Alaska-Canada Boundary Range allow for insights into the future of this biome, which are not available from other indicators.

Research themes include habit change, species assemblages; interactions between plants, animals, insects, and substrates. Abiotic variables including aspect, dominant wind direction, slope, precipitation, and lithology, among other factors are considered. Successional processes will be investigated in conjunction with Quaternary geomorphology and landform development in the periglacial environment.  A model for species richness determinations, developed in previous research on the icefield nunataks will continue to be tested on previously uninvestigated nunataks. The data will be used to determine the validity of a hypothesis of nunatak biogeography as a corollary to the theory of island biogeography.  Students will learn basic plant (vascular and nonvascular) identification techniques, ecological field research methodologies, data analysis techniques, sampling and project design, and collection and processing procedures. Students will contribute to and participate in ongoing research. 

Specific Objectives and Possible Project Directions

A.      Carry out vegetation surveys and observations on many nunatak sites, with some sites of special interest; Observe for changes in abundance and species composition; Improve the representation of Southeast Alaska in the flora of the herbaria of UAF and UAA.

B.      Contribute to the data set to test the plant species richness per unit area model, revise and re-evaluate.

C.      Observe for and record the presence of Festuca genus grasses, with interest in the presence of Neotyphodium. Observe for the presence of foragers. Prepare collections for genetic work.

D.     Observe for, record and report the presence of species range extensions, invasive or exotic species, or fungi of interest, in particular, Taraxum sp. and Exobasidium karstenii.

E.      Consider and observe interspecies and species substrate relationships, including observations for Nebria and Bambina genus beetles; foragers, including birds, other insects, animals; and plants.

F.       Observe for the presence of Nebria sp. for studies on the dispersal of the species on the nunataks and within Northwestern North American mountain ranges. Collect Nebria, record detailed habitat observations, and prepare samples for genetic work.

G.     Re-evaluate sites investigated by Henry Imshaug, survey, observe, record, and collect lichens. Carry out lichen and bryophyte baseline studies.

H.     Assist with observation for and collection of Cryptogramma crispa, C. acrostichoides, and C. sitchensis for genetic work and study of the species dispersal since the LGM. Members of the fern genus Cryptogramma, are known by their common name as the ‘parsley ferns’. Prepare collections for genetic work.

I.        Download and re-deploy digital temperature data loggers at select sites. Analyze this data in association with other variables. Consider influence of growing season length and variations in growing season on the habitats.

Timeline and logistics:  Introductory information on methodology and identification will take place at the beginning of the summer and be reinforced and reviewed throughout the summer as we traverse the icefield. At least 2-3 days/week will be spent in the field.  The ecology team will transport themselves, in most cases, to locations of interests.  Students should expect at least 1 day per week in camp working on data analysis.  New data will be collected, processed and preliminary interpretations made.  Two or more overnight field trips may take place to sites such the Nugget Ridge area, Sunday Point  and Brassiere Hills, possibly the Hole in the Wall and Twin Glaciers/ Camp 4 area, Juncture Peak and Shoehorn Peak area, Ivy Ridge, the Blob and/or F-10.

Possible conferences:

The Alaska Botanical Forum (will most likely be held in Fairbanks or Ketchikan in fall of 2015).

The Northwest Scientific Association Spring 2016 Conference, The Alaska Forum on the Environment Spring 2016 in Anchorage, The AISWG-CNPM(AK Invasive Species Conference) Fall 2015.

References:

Bjelland, T. 2003. The Influence of Environmental Factors on the Spatial Distribution of Saxicolous Lichens in a Norwegian Coastal Community. Journal of Vegetation Science(14) 4 525-534.

Cannone, N., Sgorbati, S., Guglielmin, M. 2007. Unexpected Impacts of Climate Change on Alpine Vegetation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 5(7):360-364

Halloy, S. R. P., & Mark, A. F. 2003. Climate-change effects on alpine plant biodiversity: A New Zealand perspective on quantifying the threat. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research. 35(2): 248-254.

Harvey, J.E. and Smith, D.J. 2013.  Lichenometric dating of Little Ice Age Glacier activity in the Central British Columbia Coast Mountains, Canada.  Geografiska Annaler: Series A, Physical Geography 95, p. 1-14.

Kammer, P. M., Schöb, C., and Choler, P. 2007. Increasing species richness on mountain summits: Upward migration due to anthropogenic climate change or re-colonisation? Journal of Vegetation Science. 18: 301-306.

Keeling, C.D., Chin, J.F.S. & Whort, T.P. 1996. Increased activity of northern vegetation inferred from atmospheric CO2 measurements. Nature. 382: 11 July,  146-149.

Koh, S. and Hik, D.D. 2007.Herbivory mediates grass-endophytes relationships. Ecology, 88(11); 2752–2757.

Koh, S. and Hik, D.D. 2008.Herbivory mediates grass-endophytes relationships Reply. Ecology, 88(12);3545-3549.

Smith, V. R., Steenkamp, M., & Gremmen, N. J. M. 2001. Terrestrial habitats on sub-Antarctic Marion Island: Their vegetation, edaphic attributes, distribution and response to climate change. South African Journal of Botany. 67: 641-654.

Walther, G.R., Beiβer, S., & Conradin, A. 2005. Trends in the upward shift of alpine plants. Journal of Vegetation Science. 16: 541-548.

Walther, G.R, Post, E., Convey, P., Menzel, A., Parmesan, C., Beebee, T. J. C., Fromentin, J. M., Hoegh-Guldberg, O., & Bairlein, F. 2002. Ecological responses to recent climate change. Nature. 416: 389-395.

Scherrer, D. and Körner, C. 2011. Topographically controlled thermal-habitat differentiation buffers alpine plant diversity against climate warming. Journal of Biogeography 38, 406–416.

Student Project: Stable Water Isotopes

JIRP 2015 Student Project: Stable Water Isotopes to Examine Moisture Transport and Snowpack Evolution on the Juneau Icefield.

Project leader: J. Kavanaugh

This study will use measurements of the stable water isotopic ratios δ18O and δD (see Footnote #1) to examine several aspects of the Icefield’s hydrology and snowpack. These isotopic ratios are influenced by a range of important environmental parameters, including temperature, relative humidity, phase transitions, and transport path characteristics, and can thus be used to examine the movement of water through the hydrological cycle. The proposed research project will examine isotopic signatures of both freshly-fallen snow (to examine lateral and vertical gradients in isotopic values) and the upper several meters of the snow and firn pack. An additional potential project will track the change in isotopic content of one or several JIRP participants as they cross the icefield. Although not confirmed at this time, it is possible that a portion of the isotopic analyses will be performed on the icefield using a Los Gatos Water Isotope Analyzer, which can determine δ18O and δD values from samples. The remaining samples (and duplicates of some or all samples analyzed on the icefield) will be analyzed at the University of Alaska Anchorage.

Students participating in this project will read papers selected to demonstrate the use of water isotopic techniques to both cryospheric research in particular and Earth system science in general.  Students involved in this project will have the option to either complete their contributions at or near the end of the summer field expedition (“Level 1”) or to extend their involvement through the Fall semester (“Level 2”).

Research Topics:                                    

1. Examining changes in isotopic ratios along lateral and vertical gradients. As moisture is transported from its source region inland, its isotopic signature changes as the result of (a) Rayleigh distillation (whereby moisture becomes progressively more depleted in heavy isotopes as less and less of the original moisture remains) and (b) the temperature dependence of isotopic fractionation upon phase change (e.g., condensation from the vapor phase). Snow samples will be collected along both lateral (i.e., along moisture path) and vertical (i.e., elevational) transects in order to tease out horizontal and vertical isotopic gradients. Ideally, these transects will be sampled in as short a time period as practical, and at least twice: the first during or shortly after a fresh snowfall (if conditions are deemed safe to do so) to capture unmodified isotopic values and the second after the snowpack has been exposed to several freeze/thaw cycles and other aging effects that could modify the isotopic signature. (Level 1 and 2) Following completion of JIRP, Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) models will be used to determine the air mass trajectory for the sampled precipitation events to determine along-path distances and moisture source characteristics. (Level 2)

2. Examining isotopic variations within the snowpack. A 2014 student study of isotopic signatures in snowpits indicated that water contained in ice lenses was generally isotopically lighter (i.e., more depleted in heavy isotopes) than was water contained in the surrounding snow. This difference is of interest because it can be used to examine whether ice lenses form from rainfall events, from the refreezing of melted snow, or from a combination of these two mechanisms. Students in 2015 will examine the isotopic signature of ice lenses, and the snow immediately above and below them, in much greater detail than was done in 2014, in order to address this question.

Additional work will be performed to examine the evolution of isotopic signatures with aging of the snow and firn. First, one or more snow pits will be dug to reveal two years’ worth of accumulated snow and firn (i.e., one year’s greater accumulation than typical). Firn samples in the layer dating from 1-2 years (i.e., corresponding to the snow sampled during JIRP 2014) will be analyzed, and isotopic values will be compared to those obtained in 2014 to determine the magnitude of change. Second, snow and firn will be sampled from the exposed faces of several crevasses and analyzed to determine whether isotopic values vary significantly (due to atmospheric exposure and possible meltwater contamination) from those obtained from snow and firn samples in nearby snow pits. Ideally, the multi-year snow/firn pits will be dug in locations that (a) were sampled for isotopic analysis in 2014 and (b) are near crevasses suitable for study. (Levels 1 and 2)

Footnotes

1These so called “delta values” are measures of the ratio of “heavy” vs “light” water molecules (e.g. those with 18O vs 16O isotopes, respectively) in any sample compared to a global standard.

References

Dansgaard, Willi. "Stable isotopes in precipitation." Tellus 16.4 (1964): 436-468.

Merlivat, Liliane, and Jean Jouzel. "Global climatic interpretation of the deuterium‐oxygen 18 relationship for precipitation." Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (1978–2012) 84.C8 (1979): 5029-5033.

Jouzel, Jean, and Liliane Merlivat. "Deuterium and oxygen 18 in precipitation: modeling of the isotopic effects during snow formation." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 89.D7 (1984): 11749-11757.

Kavanaugh, J. L., and Kurt M. Cuffey. "Space and time variation of δ18O and δD in Antarctic precipitation revisited." Global Biogeochemical Cycles 17.1 (2003).

Dansgaard, Willi, et al. "A new Greenland deep ice core." Science 218.4579 (1982): 1273-1277.

Student Project: Glacier Mass Balance

2015 JIRP Student Project: Glacier Mass Balance

Faculty experts: Matt Beedle, Lindsey Nicholson, Shad O’Neel.

Overview: The glacier mass balance project works to directly measure the gains and losses of snow and ice across the surface of Taku and Lemon Creek glaciers. These measurements will be added to and placed in the context of the 50+ year continuous record of mass balance on the Juneau Icefield. The goal of this project is to quantify snow accumulation and ice melt for balance year 2015.

Level 1 students are not expected to continue their work beyond the summer field camp unless computations and write up are not completed during summer.

Level 2 students should expect to continue to work on data analysis beyond the summer season, with a more detailed analysis and report turned in near the end of fall semester.

A.    Snow accumulation. Snowpits will be excavated at several (15-25) established locations on Taku and Lemon Creek glaciers to the depth of the previous summer surface. In each pit a density profile will be computed and plotted with a provided template. Column average density and snow water equivalent are calculated. Levels 1&2.

B.     Snow and ice ablation. Stake measurements will be measured as possible (3 sites at minimum). These measurements will be used to calculate snow and ice melt. Levels 1&2.

C.     Firn evolution. At snowpits near the ELA, continue excavation through 2014 firn. Compare and contrast SWE with 2014 observations. Level 2.

D.    Glacier-wide balance. Students will learn to construct a balance profile from the point-data and then estimate the glacier-wide balance using a supplied glacier geometry. Levels 1&2. Level 2 students will use a degree-day model (supplied) to adjust all measurements to a common date (may involve synthetic wx data) and compare estimates over the original and present-day surfaces to compare and contrast 2 common analysis frameworks (conventional vs. reference-surface balance).

E.     Cumulative balance. Using the entire measurement time series, students will calculate the cumulative mass balance as a function of time and display this work graphically. They will discuss the similarities and differences between the two glaciers response to similar climate forcing. Levels 1 & 2.

F.     Climate forcing. Quantify the relationship between temperature and mass balance, as well as precipitation and mass balance. This exercise is for Level 2 students upon return from the icefield.

Timeline and logistics: snowpit excavation occurs on a semi-regular basis throughout the traverse, with 2-3 days/week spent in the field.  This is a labor-intensive project. The mass balance team generally transports themselves to snow pit locations via human power.  Logistics are limited for this project, but the project members will travel to places where most students will not. Students should expect at least 1 day per week in camp working on data analysis. New data will be collected, processed and preliminary interpretations made. Additionally, student reports will need to include external (supplied) data sets such as Area Altitude Distributions, and historic mass balance values.

References (numbered by priority, i.e. study #1 first, #10 last):

1. Pelto, M., Kavanaugh, J., and McNeil, C., 2013, Juneau Icefield Mass Balance Program 1946–2011: Earth System Science Data, v. 5, no. 2, p. 319–330.

2. Arendt, A.A., Echelmeyer, K.A., Harrison, W.D., Lingle, C.S., and Valentine, V.B., 2002, Rapid Wastage of Alaska Glaciers and Their Contribution to Rising Sea Level: Science, v. 297, no. 5580, p. 382–386.

3. Gardner, A.S., Moholdt, G., Cogley, J.G., Wouters, B., Arendt, A.A., Wahr, J., Berthier, E., Hock, R., Pfeffer, W.T., Kaser, G., Ligtenberg, S.R.M., Bolch, T., Sharp, M.J., Hagen, J.O., and others, 2013, A Reconciled Estimate of Glacier Contributions to Sea Level Rise: 2003 to 2009: Science, v. 340, no. 6134, p. 852–857.

4. Cogley, J., Hock, R., Rasmussen, L., Arendt, A., Bauder, A., Braithwaite, R., Jansson, P., Kaser, G., Möller, M., Nicholson, L., and others, 2011, Glossary of glacier mass balance and related terms, IHP-VII technical documents in hydrology No. 86, IACS Contribution No. 2: UNESCO-IHP, Paris.

5. Owen, L.A., Thackray, G., Anderson, R.S., Briner, J., Kaufman, D., Roe, G., Pfeffer, W., and Yi, C., 2009, Integrated research on mountain glaciers: Current status, priorities and future prospects: Geomorphology, v. 103, no. 2, p. 158–171.

6. Criscitiello, A.S., Kelly, M.A., and Tremblay, B., 2010, The Response of Taku and Lemon Creek Glaciers to Climate: Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, v. 42, no. 1, p. 34–44.

7. Larsen, C.F., Motyka, R.J., Arendt, A.A., Echelmeyer, K.A., and Geissler, P.E., 2007, Glacier changes in southeast Alaska and northwest British Columbia and contribution to sea level rise: Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, v. 112, no. F1.

8. O’Neel, S., Hood, E., Arendt, A., and Sass, L., 2014, Assessing streamflow sensitivity to variations in glacier mass balance: Climatic Change, v. 123, no. 2, p. 1–13.

9. Huss, M., Hock, R., Bauder, A., and Funk, M., 2012, Conventional versus reference-surface mass balance: Journal of Glaciology, v. 58, no. 208, p. 278–286.

Pre-JIRP Readings: Icefield-to-Ocean Linkages

The reading this week is as follows:

Icefield-to-Ocean Linkages across the Northern Pacific Coastal Temperate Rainforest Ecosystem. O'Neel, S. et al, 2015. Icefield-to-Ocean Linkages across the Northern Pacific Coastal Temperate Rainforest Ecosystem. BioScience (May 2015) 65 (5): 499-512. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv027

Glaciers are often considered to be slowly changing ice blocks on the landscape, biological deserts some might say.  This paper walks you from the icefields (like you will be traversing this summer) to the nearshore ocean ecosystem, demonstrating how glaciers are connected to many processes along the way. Processes like phytoplankton blooms might not seem at first glance to care about the health of the glaciers, but they do.  And phytoplankton make a good base to the food web, feeding the things that Salmon, whales and bears like to eat. In turn, this type of connection links glacier change back to the economy of Alaska, and encourages us to better understand the connections between the physical and biological components of the icefield-to-ocean ecosystem.

That's all for today!