Table of Contents
Fetching ...

What is glacier sliding

Robert Law, David Chandler, Phillip Voigt, Ivan Utkin, Andreas Born

TL;DR

This work reframes glacier sliding as the aggregate effect of numerous near-bed sub-processes, introducing a sliding-bulk layer framework that separates tangential (slip) and normal (form drag) resistances and links them to a transmissible near-bed velocity field. It formalizes a practical production-model representation as the sum of a regularised-Coulomb slip term and a power-law drag term, plus an error component, enabling incorporation of soft-bed, hard-bed, cavitation, form drag, temperate basal ice, and hydrology within a single cohesive scheme. The authors argue that a truly universal single-term sliding law is unlikely due to scale dependence, bed heterogeneity, cavitation dynamics, and compensating model errors; instead, they advocate a multi-term or setting-aware approach with explicit attention to cavitation scale ($l_c$) and bed roughness, which can improve model realism and predictive performance for sea-level projections. The framework provides a structured path to unify diverse sub-processes across settings and scales, clarifying where current production-model parameterizations succeed or fail and outlining key open questions in subglacial hydrology, basal rheology, and scale-dependent form drag. This work thus offers a principled route toward more physically grounded, region-specific sliding parameterizations for ice-sheet and glacier models, with implications for better constraining future sea-level rise and water-resource forecasts.

Abstract

Glacier and ice-sheet motion is fundamental to glaciology. However, we still lack a consensus for the optimal way to relate basal velocity to basal traction for large-scale glacier and ice-sheet models (the 'sliding relationship'). Typically, a single tunable coefficient loosely connected to one or a limited number of physical processes is varied spatially to reconcile model output with observations. Yet, process-agnostic studies indicate that the suitability of a given sliding relationship depends on the setting. Here, we suggest that this arises from myriad overlapping setting- and scale-dependent sliding sub-processes, including complicated near-basal stress states not captured by large-scale models, reviewed here as comprising a basal 'sliding layer'. A corresponding 'bulk layer' then accounts for ice deformation only minimally influenced by bed properties. We provide a framework for incorporating arbitrarily many sub-processes within a given region -- separated into normal ('form drag') and tangential ('slip') resistance at the ice-bed interface, stressing that the maximum scale of cavitation is an important contributor to the division between the two. Under reasonable assumptions, our framework implies that sliding relationships should fall within a sum of regularised-Coulomb and power-law components, with a rough-smooth distinction proving more consequential in dictating sliding behaviour than a traditional hard-soft transition.

What is glacier sliding

TL;DR

This work reframes glacier sliding as the aggregate effect of numerous near-bed sub-processes, introducing a sliding-bulk layer framework that separates tangential (slip) and normal (form drag) resistances and links them to a transmissible near-bed velocity field. It formalizes a practical production-model representation as the sum of a regularised-Coulomb slip term and a power-law drag term, plus an error component, enabling incorporation of soft-bed, hard-bed, cavitation, form drag, temperate basal ice, and hydrology within a single cohesive scheme. The authors argue that a truly universal single-term sliding law is unlikely due to scale dependence, bed heterogeneity, cavitation dynamics, and compensating model errors; instead, they advocate a multi-term or setting-aware approach with explicit attention to cavitation scale () and bed roughness, which can improve model realism and predictive performance for sea-level projections. The framework provides a structured path to unify diverse sub-processes across settings and scales, clarifying where current production-model parameterizations succeed or fail and outlining key open questions in subglacial hydrology, basal rheology, and scale-dependent form drag. This work thus offers a principled route toward more physically grounded, region-specific sliding parameterizations for ice-sheet and glacier models, with implications for better constraining future sea-level rise and water-resource forecasts.

Abstract

Glacier and ice-sheet motion is fundamental to glaciology. However, we still lack a consensus for the optimal way to relate basal velocity to basal traction for large-scale glacier and ice-sheet models (the 'sliding relationship'). Typically, a single tunable coefficient loosely connected to one or a limited number of physical processes is varied spatially to reconcile model output with observations. Yet, process-agnostic studies indicate that the suitability of a given sliding relationship depends on the setting. Here, we suggest that this arises from myriad overlapping setting- and scale-dependent sliding sub-processes, including complicated near-basal stress states not captured by large-scale models, reviewed here as comprising a basal 'sliding layer'. A corresponding 'bulk layer' then accounts for ice deformation only minimally influenced by bed properties. We provide a framework for incorporating arbitrarily many sub-processes within a given region -- separated into normal ('form drag') and tangential ('slip') resistance at the ice-bed interface, stressing that the maximum scale of cavitation is an important contributor to the division between the two. Under reasonable assumptions, our framework implies that sliding relationships should fall within a sum of regularised-Coulomb and power-law components, with a rough-smooth distinction proving more consequential in dictating sliding behaviour than a traditional hard-soft transition.
Paper Structure (49 sections, 43 equations, 13 figures, 3 tables)

This paper contains 49 sections, 43 equations, 13 figures, 3 tables.

Figures (13)

  • Figure 1: Existing sliding parameterisations and how their development relates to soft- and hard-bed theory. R-c+P-l represents Regularised-Coulomb plus power-law. Traction and velocity values are plausible, but for illustrative purposes only.
  • Figure 2: Spatial scales for theories and parameterisations of basal sliding. A solid line indicates coverage as explicitly defined in the associated paper paper while a dashed line indicates probable situation dependent coverage and an arrow indicates extension beyond the scale bar or an uncertain coverage beyond the given limit. $l_{c}$ is the (likely setting-dependent) upper-limit length-scale for cavitation (Sections \ref{['s:innerouterinner']}, \ref{['s:ikens']}). Reasoning behind the positioning of other spatial ranges is provided in Appendix \ref{['A:scale']}.
  • Figure 3: Typically sized grid cells and mesh element overlain on previously glaciated regions. Thwaites Glacier bathymetry is from Hogan2020RevealingButtressing. Frafjord topography is from Kartverket.no.
  • Figure 4: Schematics of glacier sliding sub-processes and controls discussed in the text. Scale is intentionally omitted but scale generally increases left to right and top to bottom through sub-processes. Hydrological processes and enthalpy field/temperate ice in j, k, and l are considered as controls, since they do not contribute directly to ice transport (even if hydrology is still a mass transport process in the strictest sense); these are distinguished with blue outline boxes. a Form drag over sedimentary clasts. b Shear of sediment. c Ice with clasts sliding over a flat hard bed. d Stick-slip events. e Regelation. f Deformation within the basal ice layer. g Cavitation. h Spatially variable slip rates resulting from sliding over rough topography. i Spatially variable ice deformation over rough topography. j Temperate layer processes. k Hydrology and channelisation. l Subglacial lakes.
  • Figure 5: The basal ice layer at Russel Glacier, Greenland. From Knight2002DischargeSheet with permission showing characteristic stratigraphy.
  • ...and 8 more figures