Community hub
0 subscribers8 pages, 0 posts
Recent from talks
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Welcome to the community hub built to collect knowledge and have discussions related to Ice cap.
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Ice cap
View on Wikipediafrom Wikipedia
In glaciology, an ice cap is a mass of ice that covers less than 50,000 km2 (19,000 sq mi) of land area (usually covering a highland area). Larger ice masses covering more than 50,000 km2 (19,000 sq mi) are termed ice sheets.[1][2][3]
Description
[edit]By definition, ice caps are not constrained by topographical features (i.e., they must lie over the top of mountains). By contrast, ice masses of similar size that are constrained by topographical features are known as ice fields. The dome of an ice cap is usually centred on the highest point of a massif. Ice flows away from this high point (the ice divide) towards the ice cap's periphery.[1][3]
Ice caps significantly affect the geomorphology of the area they occupy. Plastic moulding, gouging and other glacial erosional features become present upon the glacier's retreat. Many lakes, such as the Great Lakes in North America, as well as numerous valleys have been formed by glacial action over hundreds of thousands of years.
The Antarctic and Greenland contain 99% of the ice volume on earth, about 33 million cubic kilometres (7.9 million cubic miles) of total ice mass.[4]
Formation
[edit]Ice caps are formed when snow is deposited during the cold season and fails to completely melt during the hot season.[5] Over time, the snow builds up and becomes dense, well-bonded snow known as perennial firn.[5] Finally, the air passages between snow particles close off and transforms into ice.[5]
The shape of an ice cap is determined by the landscape it lies on, as melting patterns can vary with terrain.[5] For example, the lower portions of an ice cap are forced to flow outwards under the weight of the entire ice cap and will follow the downward slopes of the land.[5]
Global warming
[edit]Ice caps have been used as indicators of global warming, as increasing temperatures cause ice caps to melt and lose mass faster than they accumulate mass.[5][6] Ice cap size can be monitored through different remote-sensing methods such as aircraft and satellite data.[7]
Ice caps accumulate snow on their upper surfaces, and ablate snow on their lower surfaces.[6] An ice cap in equilibrium accumulates and ablates snow at the same rate. The AAR is the ratio between the accumulation area and the total area of the ice cap, which is used to indicate the health of the glacier.[6] Depending on their shape and mass, healthy glaciers in equilibrium typically have an AAR of approximately 0.4 to 0.8.[6] The AAR is impacted by environmental conditions such as temperature and precipitation.[6]
Data from 86 mountain glaciers and ice caps shows that over the long term, the AAR of glaciers has been about 0.57.[6] In contrast, data from the most recent years of 1997–2006 yields an AAR of only 0.44.[6] In other words, glaciers and ice caps are accumulating less snow and are out of equilibrium, causing melting and contributing to sea level rises.[6]
Assuming the climate continues to be in the same state as it was in 2006, it is estimated that ice caps will contribute a 95 ± 29 mm rise in global sea levels until they reach equilibrium.[6] However, environmental conditions have worsened and are predicted to continue to worsen in the future.[5][6] Given that the rate of melting will accelerate, and by using mathematical models to predict future climate patterns, the actual contribution of ice caps to rising sea levels is expected to be more than double from initial estimates.[6]
Variants
[edit]High-latitude regions covered in ice, though strictly not an ice cap (since they exceed the maximum area specified in the definition above), are called polar ice caps; the usage of this designation is widespread in the mass media[8] and arguably recognized by experts.[9] Vatnajökull is an example of an ice cap in Iceland.[10]
Plateau glaciers are glaciers that overlie a generally flat highland area. Usually, the ice overflows as hanging glaciers in the lower parts of the edges.[11] An example is Biscayarfonna in Svalbard.[12]
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ a b Benn, Douglas; Evans, David (1998). Glaciers and Glaciation. London: Arnold. ISBN 0-340-58431-9.
- ^ Bennett, Matthew; Glasser, Neil (1996). Glacial Geology: Ice Sheets and Landforms. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 0-471-96345-3.
- ^ a b Greve, R.; Blatter, H. (2009). Dynamics of Ice Sheets and Glaciers. Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03415-2. ISBN 978-3-642-03414-5.
- ^ "Ice Sheet Quick Facts". National Snow and Ice Data Center. CIRES at the University of Colorado Boulder. Retrieved 25 September 2023.
- ^ a b c d e f g Zemp, Michael; Haeberli, W. (2007). "Glaciers and ice caps. Part I: Global overview and outlook. Part II: Glacier changes around the world" (PDF).
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k Bahr, David B.; Dyurgerov, Mark; Meier, Mark F. (February 2009). "Sea-level rise from glaciers and ice caps: A lower bound: SEA-LEVEL RISE FROM GLACIERS". Geophysical Research Letters. 36 (3): n/a. doi:10.1029/2008GL036309. S2CID 130266957.
- ^ Bell, Christina; Mair, Douglas; Burgess, David; Sharp, Martin; Demuth, Michael; Cawkwell, Fiona; Bingham, Robert; Wadham, Jemma (2008). "Spatial and temporal variability in the snowpack of a High Arctic ice cap: implications for mass-change measurements" (PDF).
- ^ "Time Magazine Online: Arctic Ice Explorers". CNN. 2009-03-11. Retrieved 2010-05-04.
- ^ "Cryosphere Glossary". The National Snow and Ice Data Center. Retrieved 27 March 2020.
- ^ Flowers, Gwenn E.; Marshall, Shawn J.; Bjŏrnsson, Helgi; Clarke, Garry K. C. (2005). "Sensitivity of Vatnajŏkull ice cap hydrology and dynamics to climate warming over the next 2 centuries" (PDF). Journal of Geophysical Research. 110 (F2): F02011. Bibcode:2005JGRF..110.2011F. doi:10.1029/2004JF000200. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2007-09-27. Retrieved 2007-05-31.
- ^ Whalley, Brian. "Plateau Glaciers and their significance". Vignettes: Key Concepts in Geomorphology. Retrieved 27 March 2020 – via Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College.
- ^ "Biscayarfonna (Svalbard)". Norwegian Polar Institute. Retrieved 11 October 2019.
| International | |
|---|---|
| National | |
| Other | |
Ice cap
View on Grokipediafrom Grokipedia
An ice cap is a glacier consisting of a thick layer of ice and snow that covers fewer than 50,000 square kilometers (19,000 square miles) of land, usually atop highland areas or mountains.[1][2]
Unlike larger ice sheets, which exceed this area and dominate continental landscapes such as those in Greenland and Antarctica, ice caps are distinguished by their smaller scale and tendency to obscure underlying topography while spreading in a dome-like fashion.[3][4]
They form through the long-term accumulation of snowfall in regions where winter precipitation exceeds summer melt, leading to compaction into dense glacial ice under the weight of overlying layers.[5][6]
Ice caps typically drain via outlet glaciers that extend to lower elevations, influencing local hydrology and contributing to sea level dynamics through potential meltwater release.[7][3]
Notable examples include Vatnajökull in Iceland, Europe's largest ice cap, and the Severny Island ice cap in the Russian Arctic, highlighting their prevalence in subpolar and Arctic environments.[8][9]
Definition and Characteristics
Physical Definition and Distinctions
An ice cap constitutes a perennial, dome-shaped mass of glacier ice that originates from the compaction and recrystallization of snow, covering land areas typically less than 50,000 square kilometers (19,000 square miles) while flowing radially outward from a central summit under the influence of gravity.[7][10] This ice accumulation largely conceals the underlying topography, with ice thicknesses often exceeding 100 meters in the accumulation zone, derived from repeated cycles of snowfall exceeding ablation through melting, sublimation, and calving.[5][1] Ice caps differ from continental ice sheets primarily in scale and extent; ice sheets encompass areas greater than 50,000 km², such as the Antarctic Ice Sheet at about 14 million km² or the Greenland Ice Sheet at 1.7 million km², enabling them to exert profound influences on global sea levels and climate through their massive volumes exceeding 24 million km³ combined.[11] In contrast, ice caps are confined to subcontinental or insular settings, like high plateaus or mountain complexes, without achieving the latitudinal dominance of ice sheets.[12] Relative to valley glaciers, ice caps lack confinement by topographic channels, instead exhibiting broad, unchanneled flow across undulating terrain, which distinguishes them from the linear, river-like morphology of glaciers constrained to V-shaped valleys or fjords.[12] Ice fields, often considered akin to ice caps, may cover similar areas but typically drape over irregular mountain ridges with less pronounced doming and more fragmented drainage via multiple outlet glaciers, though terminological overlap persists in glaciological literature.[3] Neither ice caps nor ice fields float extensively like ice shelves, which form as seaward extensions of grounded ice, remaining instead as land-based features responsive to terrestrial mass balance.[4]Key Physical Properties
Ice caps consist primarily of firn and glacier ice formed from compacted snow, with densities progressing from approximately 100–300 kg/m³ in fresh snow to 400–800 kg/m³ in firn layers, reaching 830–917 kg/m³ in fully densified ice where air bubbles close off around 815–830 kg/m³ under overburden pressure.[13] [14] The maximum density of bubble-free glacial ice is 917 kg/m³ at 0°C, decreasing slightly to about 913 kg/m³ at -50°C due to thermal contraction, though residual air and impurities often result in effective densities of 900–910 kg/m³ in mature ice.[14] Crystal structure features polycrystalline aggregates of hexagonal ice (Ih) with grain sizes increasing from millimeters near the surface to centimeters or decimeters at depth, influenced by strain-induced recrystallization and temperature gradients.[14] Thermally, ice cap ice exhibits temperatures typically ranging from -50°C in upper polar interiors to near the pressure melting point (-0.1°C per 10 m depth due to hydrostatic pressure) at the base in temperate zones, with cold-based ice caps maintaining sub-freezing conditions throughout to limit basal sliding.[15] Thermal conductivity increases from about 2.2 W/m·K at 0°C to 2.5 W/m·K at -50°C, facilitating heat transfer that influences densification rates and meltwater production, while specific heat capacity is approximately 2.0–2.1 kJ/kg·K near -10°C, varying with density and impurities.[13] Mechanically, ice caps flow via non-linear viscous creep governed by Glen's flow law, where , is deviatoric stress, and rate factor (around to Pa s) rises exponentially with temperature (doubling every ~10°C) and decreases with grain size or impurities, yielding effective viscosities of – Pa·s under typical stresses of 0.1–1 MPa.[16] [17] This rheology enables plastic deformation rates sensitive to stress levels, with higher stresses reducing viscosity more than linear models predict, enhancing flow in shear margins; temperate ice with liquid water films further softens response, promoting faster deformation up to orders of magnitude over cold dry ice.[17] [18]Formation and Glaciological Processes
Snow-to-Ice Transformation
The snow-to-ice transformation in ice caps commences with the deposition of fresh snow in accumulation zones, where winter precipitation exceeds summer ablation, leading to net buildup. Fresh snow exhibits low densities of 50-200 kg/m³, varying with crystal type and wind influence, and initially experiences minimal compaction.[19] [20] Subsequent burial by newer layers induces mechanical compaction, reducing pore space through overburden pressure, while dry metamorphism—driven by temperature gradients—facilitates vapor diffusion between grains, promoting rounding, necking, and growth of ice particles up to several centimeters in diameter. This phase transitions snow into granular forms, with sintering strengthening intergranular bonds via surface diffusion and partial melting at contacts.[19] [20] Firn emerges as an intermediate state after snow survives at least one annual cycle without full melt, achieving densities of 400-830 kg/m³ through continued compression and recrystallization; in polar ice caps, this layer spans tens of meters, with surface firn often reaching 280-420 kg/m³ post-initial settling.[19] [20] [21] In cold, dry polar regimes characteristic of many ice caps, densification proceeds slowly via pressure and diffusion, without significant liquid water; however, in warmer subpolar or temperate ice caps, episodic surface melting percolates downward, refreezing to form ice lenses that rapidly occlude pores and elevate density.[19] Full conversion to glacial ice occurs upon reaching a density threshold of approximately 830 kg/m³, when interconnected air channels seal at the "close-off depth"—typically 50-80 meters in polar settings, shallower (around 13 meters) in temperate ones—trapping air bubbles and enabling viscous flow under shear.[19] [22] Time scales for surface snow to densify into ice vary inversely with accumulation rate and temperature: 3-5 years in temperate ice caps like those in Iceland, but 100-300 years in low-accumulation polar examples, extending to 2500 years in extreme East Antarctic sites with annual snowfall below 3 cm water equivalent.[19] Mature glacial ice attains densities of 917-923 kg/m³, approaching that of pure ice under confinement, with embedded air content reflecting atmospheric conditions at close-off.[19]Mass Balance and Dynamics
The mass balance of an ice cap represents the net annual change in its ice volume, governed by the balance between mass gains from accumulation and losses from ablation and dynamic discharge. Surface mass balance (SMB), the dominant factor for most ice caps, integrates solid precipitation (primarily snowfall) and superimposed ice formation against surface ablation processes such as melting, sublimation, and runoff.[23] Total mass balance additionally accounts for dynamic losses via iceberg calving from tidewater margins and basal melting, which can constitute 20-50% of net loss in marine-terminating ice caps like those in Svalbard.[24] Positive SMB occurs where annual accumulation exceeds ablation, typically in elevated interior zones, while negative SMB prevails at lower elevations and margins, driving overall thinning in many contemporary ice caps.[25] Accumulation rates vary spatially and temporally, influenced by regional precipitation patterns and storm tracks; for Arctic ice caps, these typically range from 0.2 to 0.8 meters water equivalent per year, with higher values in maritime settings like Iceland's Vatnajökull (up to 1.5 m w.e./yr in coastal areas) and lower in continental interiors.[26] Snow redistribution by wind enhances accumulation in leeward slopes or firn areas but can lead to scouring elsewhere, complicating net inputs. Ablation, conversely, is driven by surface energy balance, where net radiation, sensible and latent heat fluxes, and rainfall contribute to melt; rates can exceed 2-5 m w.e./yr at ice cap margins during summer melt seasons, amplified by albedo feedback from exposed bare ice or supraglacial debris.[27] In polar environments, sublimation accounts for 10-20% of ablation, while equatorial or temperate ice caps experience greater runoff from en- or subglacial drainage.[28] Ice cap dynamics couple mass balance to internal ice flow and deformation, primarily through gravitational driving stress that induces creep via Glen's flow law, where strain rates scale nonlinearly with deviatoric stress (exponent n ≈ 3).[29] Basal sliding, facilitated by subglacial water, accelerates outlet glaciers, exporting mass to calving fronts at velocities up to 100 m/yr in dynamic sectors like Austfonna, Svalbard.[24] Negative mass balance triggers feedbacks, such as terminus retreat reducing backstress and enhancing flow speedup (up to 20-30% increase), while surface lowering steepens slopes and promotes further ablation through elevation-mass balance feedback.[25] In equilibrium, ice caps maintain steady-state thickness where influx equals outflux, but imbalances lead to adjustment timespans of decades to centuries, modulated by bed topography and thermal regime—cold-based caps deform more slowly than temperate ones with widespread sliding.[29] Empirical modeling of Arctic ice caps indicates that uncoupled mass balance-flow simulations overestimate thinning by ignoring dynamic thinning, underscoring the need for integrated approaches in projections.[24]Geographical Distribution
Major Polar and Subpolar Examples
The Severny Island ice cap, situated on Novaya Zemlya in the Russian Arctic, represents the largest ice cap globally, spanning approximately 20,500 km² and covering over 90% of the island's central mountain range, which reaches elevations up to 1,600 m.[30][31] This ice cap, part of Europe's largest by volume if considered continental, exemplifies polar ice caps formed by the accumulation of snow in high-latitude maritime and continental climates.[32] In the Canadian High Arctic, the Devon Ice Cap on Devon Island covers about 15,000 km², making it one of the most extensive ice masses in the Arctic Archipelago outside of major ice sheets.[33] Its volume is estimated at 3,980 km³, with research indicating long-term stability punctuated by recent thinning due to surface melting.[34] Similarly, the Agassiz Ice Cap on Ellesmere Island contributes to the region's significant land ice coverage, supporting paleoclimate studies through ice core records spanning millennia.[35] Subpolar ice caps, occurring at lower latitudes with milder climates, include Vatnajökull in Iceland, which extends over 8,100 km² and accounts for about 8% of the country's land area, with an average thickness of around 900 m and numerous outlet glaciers.[36] This ice cap overlies active volcanic terrain, leading to unique interactions such as subglacial eruptions, and has experienced retreat in recent decades amid regional warming.[37] Other subpolar examples persist in Alaska and Patagonia, though these often transition into ice fields with multiple interconnected glaciers rather than unified caps.[2]Mountain and Island Ice Caps
Mountain and island ice caps are dome-shaped perennial ice masses that cover elevated terrains, such as mountain plateaus or entire islands, with surface areas typically less than 50,000 km², distinguishing them from larger ice sheets through radial flow patterns that obscure underlying topography.[7] Unlike valley glaciers confined to linear paths, these ice caps exhibit multi-directional movement and form where annual snowfall accumulation persistently exceeds ablation, often in subpolar or high-altitude environments.[2] Island ice caps predominate in Arctic and sub-Arctic archipelagos, where they blanket significant portions of landmasses. The Severny Island ice cap on Novaya Zemlya, Russia, is the largest known, covering approximately 20,500 km² or 40% of the island's area, with ice thicknesses reaching hundreds of meters.[30] Vatnajökull in Iceland spans about 7,900 km², encompassing roughly 8% of the country's land and serving as a key hydrological source via outlet glaciers.[38] In the Canadian Arctic, Barnes Ice Cap on Baffin Island occupies around 5,800 km², persisting as a relic of the Pleistocene Laurentide Ice Sheet with elevations up to 1,100 m above sea level.[39] Similarly, the Agassiz Ice Cap on Ellesmere Island records millennial-scale climate signals in its ice cores, highlighting long-term stability amid regional variability.[40] Mountain ice caps occur on continental highlands and ranges, including the Andes, Rockies, and Himalayas, where orographic effects enhance precipitation and sustain ice domes atop broad summits. The Southern Patagonia Ice Field in Chile and Argentina, transitional between ice cap and field morphology, covers about 13,000 km² across the Andean spine, feeding major rivers like the Baker.[1] In Alaska, the Stikine Ice Cap straddles the U.S.-Canada border, spanning several thousand km² and supporting dynamic outlet glaciers influenced by Pacific moisture.[41] These features, though smaller than polar counterparts, collectively hold substantial freshwater reserves and modulate local ecosystems through meltwater discharge.[5]Historical Variations
Geological and Prehistoric Context
Ice caps, defined as perennial ice domes covering land areas less than 50,000 km², emerged prominently during the Quaternary Period starting approximately 2.58 million years ago, amid global cooling that facilitated repeated glacial advances beyond earlier Cenozoic precedents.[42] This period's cyclic glaciations, evidenced by oxygen isotope ratios in deep-sea cores and continental glacial deposits, saw ice caps form in high-latitude and montane settings where persistent snowfall exceeded summer melt under lowered temperatures of 4–7°C below modern averages.[43] Geological proxies, including tillites and striated bedrock, confirm that early Quaternary ice caps in regions like the Arctic islands and Andean cordillera accumulated over 10⁴–10⁵ years during marine isotope stages of high ice volume.[44] In the Pleistocene Epoch (2.58 Ma to 11.7 ka), ice cap extents waxed and waned across at least 50 glacial-interglacial cycles, driven primarily by Milankovitch forcings—eccentricity, obliquity, and precession modulating insolation—with feedback from albedo and CO₂ amplification.[45] Northern Hemisphere mountain ice caps, such as those in the Sierra Nevada and Pyrenees, expanded during cold phases, leaving moraines and U-shaped valleys as diagnostic features; for instance, Early Pleistocene ice caps preserved in eastern Siberian permafrost indicate burial under favorable cryogenic conditions lasting over 1 million years.[46] Southern Hemisphere analogs, including Patagonian plateau ice caps, thickened to equilibrate with precipitation regimes 20–50% higher than interglacials, as reconstructed from cosmogenic nuclide dating of erratics.[47] The Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), spanning roughly 26.5–19 ka, marked the prehistoric peak of ice cap proliferation, with grounded ice expansions in subpolar locales contributing to global sea-level depression exceeding 120 m through equivalent water storage of ~50–70 m from smaller caps alone.[48] Empirical mapping via ice-flow indicators and marine microfossils shows LGM ice caps on Adriatic coastal ranges reaching elevations over 1,800 m, while Antarctic Peninsula outlets advanced shelfward, though the continental ice sheet's stability underscores differential responses to orbital minima.[49] Retreat phases post-LGM, initiated ~19 ka by rising insolation, exposed deglacial landforms like roches moutonnées, revealing ice cap sensitivities to threshold crossings in mass balance.[50] These prehistoric dynamics, corroborated by U-Th dating of corals and benthic foraminifera, highlight ice caps' role in redistributing freshwater and modulating ocean circulation without invoking unsubstantiated model projections.[51]Holocene Fluctuations and Recent Millennia
During the early Holocene, warming following the Pleistocene deglaciation caused widespread retreat of remnant ice caps, with many small Arctic glaciers and ice caps reducing significantly or disappearing entirely by around 6,000 years before present (BP).[52] The mid-Holocene marked the onset of Neoglaciation, a cooling phase that initiated the regrowth and expansion of ice caps across Arctic and subpolar regions starting approximately 5,000 years BP, driven by declining summer insolation and regional temperature drops.[53][52] For example, the Quelccaya Ice Cap in Peru advanced by about 350 meters along its western margin between 7,100 and 4,500 years BP, linked to a climatic transition evident in increased sediment flux in nearby lakes around 5,000 years BP.[54] In the late Holocene and recent millennia, ice caps responded to shorter-term climatic oscillations. Advances during the Little Ice Age (roughly 1300–1850 CE) were documented globally, including in the Antarctic Peninsula where ice margins advanced between 1550 and 1860 CE, potentially in two phases.[55] These expansions reflected cooler temperatures and increased precipitation in some areas, with many ice caps reaching near-maximum extents by the 17th–19th centuries.[56] Post-Little Ice Age retreat accelerated from the mid-19th century onward, with Greenland's glaciers and ice caps losing at least 587 km³ (499 Gt) of ice volume by 2023, fragmenting from 5,327 features in 1900 to 5,467 by 2001 and continuing to diminish.[57] In the Andes, over 5,500 glaciers have undergone accelerating area loss since their Little Ice Age maxima around 1850 CE, with recent rates exceeding prior Holocene variability.[58] The Quelccaya Ice Cap, for instance, retreated at rates up to 28 m/year from 1985–2020, resulting in a 46% surface area reduction between 1976 and 2020, marking its smallest extent since the mid-Holocene.[54]Modern Monitoring and Observations
Measurement Techniques and Data Sources
Satellite-based remote sensing dominates ice cap monitoring due to its extensive spatial coverage and repeatability. Radar altimetry, as employed by missions such as CryoSat-2, measures surface elevation changes by emitting microwave pulses and recording their return time, enabling detection of thinning or thickening at rates as fine as centimeters per year over rugged terrain.[59] Laser altimetry, via instruments like those on ICESat-2, uses near-infrared lasers for higher vertical precision (down to millimeters) but is limited by cloud cover and primarily suited for clearer conditions.[60] These techniques infer volume changes by multiplying elevation differences by estimated ice density, typically 900 kg/m³ for firn and ice, though uncertainties arise from density variations and firn compaction.[61] Gravimetric methods complement altimetry by directly quantifying mass changes without relying on surface elevation assumptions. The Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and its successor GRACE-FO satellites detect variations in Earth's gravity field caused by ice mass redistribution, resolving monthly mass anomalies with basin-scale resolution of about 300-400 km, though signal leakage and glacial isostatic adjustment corrections introduce errors of 10-20 Gt/year for regional ice caps.[61] Synthetic aperture radar (SAR) interferometry and optical imagery from satellites like Sentinel-1 and Landsat track ice cap extent, terminus positions, and surface velocities, with SAR offering all-weather capability for dynamic processes like calving.[62] Ground-based measurements provide high-fidelity validation for remote sensing but are labor-intensive and site-specific. Surface mass balance (SMB) is assessed using stake networks drilled into the ice to measure annual snow accumulation and melt via height differences, often combined with snow pits for density profiling and automatic weather stations for meteorological drivers.[63] Ground-penetrating radar (GPR) surveys map internal ice stratigraphy and bed topography, while ice cores yield paleoclimate proxies and direct density measurements, though logistical challenges limit coverage to accessible margins of ice caps like Vatnajökull.[63] Key data repositories aggregate these observations for analysis. The Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) database, hosted by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), compiles glacier and ice cap outlines derived from ASTER, Landsat, and other optical data, covering over 200,000 features with attributes like area and length changes updated through 2023.[64] NSIDC's Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) distributes raw altimetry, gravimetry, and imagery datasets from NASA missions, including processed elevation grids from ICESat.[65] The Randolph Glacier Inventory (RGI), linked to GLIMS, standardizes regional ice cap inventories for mass balance modeling, emphasizing empirical outlines over modeled extrapolations.[66] Inter-comparison efforts like the Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise (IMBIE) protocols extend to peripheral ice caps, synthesizing altimetry and gravimetry for uncertainty quantification, though primarily validated against ice sheet scales.[67]Empirical Trends in Extent and Volume
Satellite gravimetry and altimetry measurements from missions such as GRACE and GRACE-FO reveal net mass loss across major polar ice caps and associated peripheral ice masses since the early 2000s. The Greenland Ice Sheet, encompassing extensive ice cap formations, has lost mass at an average rate of 266 billion metric tons per year in recent assessments, contributing to a cumulative deficit exceeding 4,000 billion tons since 1992.[68] [67] This loss accelerated through the 2010s, driven by enhanced surface melting and dynamic thinning, though annual variability persists; for instance, 2024 recorded a reduced loss of 55 ± 35 billion tons owing to elevated snowfall accumulation.[69] Smaller Arctic ice caps, such as those on Ellesmere and Devon Islands, exhibit similar retreat patterns, with frontal advances rare and confined to specific outlets amid overall areal contraction documented via Landsat and optical satellite imagery.[70] In Antarctica, ice cap volumes within the broader ice sheet complex show heterogeneous trends, with net mass loss averaging 135 billion tons annually, concentrated in West Antarctica and the Peninsula where thinning rates exceed 10 cm per year in vulnerable sectors.[68] East Antarctic ice caps have occasionally registered mass gains from increased precipitation, offsetting some western deficits and resulting in lower overall decadal acceleration compared to Greenland; satellite altimetry from 1985 to 2020 indicates elevation declines of up to 1.5 meters in coastal ice cap margins.[71] Subpolar ice caps, including Vatnajökull in Iceland and those in the Svalbard archipelago, align with global glacier trends, registering volume reductions of 5-20% regionally since 2000 through iceberg calving and ablation exceeding accumulation.[72] Globally, excluding major ice sheets, glaciers and discrete ice caps have shed approximately 6,542 billion tons of mass from 2000 to 2023, equating to an average annual rate of 273 billion tons and a roughly 5% reduction in total ice volume.[73] These losses, quantified via the Randolph Glacier Inventory and repeated DEM differencing, have intensified since the 1990s, with extent metrics showing widespread frontal retreat—e.g., over 90% of monitored ice caps in non-polar regions have shrunk in surface area by at least 10% over the past two decades.[72] IMBIE assessments confirm that such empirical declines outpace earlier model projections in aggregate, though regional exceptions tied to orographic snowfall underscore the role of localized dynamics over uniform forcing.[67]Environmental Changes and Debates
Natural Variability and Cycles
Ice caps exhibit natural variability over multiple timescales, driven by astronomical, solar, and oceanic forcings independent of human influence. Long-term fluctuations, spanning tens to hundreds of thousands of years, are primarily governed by Milankovitch cycles—variations in Earth's orbital eccentricity (cycle ~100,000 years), axial tilt (obliquity, ~41,000 years), and precession (~19,000–23,000 years)—which modulate seasonal insolation in polar regions. Reduced summer insolation in the Northern Hemisphere, for instance, allows snow to persist year-round, enabling ice sheet growth during glacial periods, as evidenced by marine sediment cores and ice core oxygen isotope records showing alignments between orbital parameters and ice volume changes over the past 800,000 years.[74][75] Shorter-term cycles, on decadal to centennial scales, include solar activity variations, such as the 11-year sunspot cycle and grand solar minima like the Maunder Minimum (1645–1715), which correlate with regional cooling and expanded ice cover, as reconstructed from cosmogenic isotopes in ice cores and historical proxy data. During the last glacial period, solar forcing influenced North Atlantic sea ice extent, with reduced activity linked to greater ice persistence, per speleothem and tree-ring proxies spanning the Holocene. Volcanic eruptions also contribute episodically, injecting aerosols that temporarily enhance albedo and cool polar regions, leading to multi-year ice anomalies observed in Greenland ice cores.[76][77][78] Oceanic oscillations further modulate ice cap extent on interannual to multidecadal timescales. The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), with a ~60–80-year periodicity, drives warmer North Atlantic surface temperatures during positive phases, reducing Arctic sea ice through enhanced heat transport and atmospheric circulation changes, as quantified in satellite records from 1979–2020 showing correlations with ice minima. Similarly, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) influences Bering Sea ice via wind anomalies and upwelling, with negative phases promoting ice growth; modeling attributes up to 50% of Arctic sea ice variability to such internal modes. In Antarctica, PDO-related wind patterns and freshwater stratification have sustained sea ice increases until 2014, countering Arctic trends via hemispheric teleconnections.[79][80][81] Empirical observations confirm these cycles' dominance in pre-industrial variability, with proxy reconstructions indicating Arctic sea ice extents comparable to modern lows during the Medieval Warm Period (~900–1300 CE) and expansions in the Little Ice Age (~1450–1850 CE), driven by solar and oceanic phases rather than CO2 levels, which remained stable. Recent pauses in Arctic decline (e.g., 2007–2012 stabilization) align with AMO shifts, underscoring natural forcings' role in masking or amplifying trends.[82][83]Anthropogenic Factors and Causal Evidence
Anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation, have elevated atmospheric concentrations to approximately 420 parts per million as of 2023, surpassing levels recorded in ice cores spanning the past 800,000 years. This radiative forcing has driven polar amplification, with Arctic surface air temperatures increasing by about 3°C since the late 19th century, more than twice the global average. Detection and attribution analyses, incorporating optimal fingerprinting methods on observational temperature records and climate model ensembles, attribute the majority of this 20th-century polar warming—estimated at 50-100%—to human-induced greenhouse gas increases rather than internal variability or solar forcing.[84][85] This warming manifests in ice cap dynamics through enhanced surface energy balance, promoting ablation over accumulation. In Greenland, satellite gravimetry from GRACE missions records an average annual mass loss of 270 gigatons between 2002 and 2021, with surface melt—intensified by air temperatures exceeding historical norms—accounting for roughly 60% of the deficit, as quantified by regional climate models calibrated against weather station data and melt pond observations. For the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, borehole temperature profiles and ice-penetrating radar reveal basal and surface thawing linked to ocean warming, where anthropogenic forcing contributes to subsurface heat fluxes that have accelerated thinning rates to 100-200 gigatons per year since the 1990s. These patterns align with thermodynamic principles: elevated longwave radiation from greenhouse gases increases net downward flux, shifting the ice sheet's mass budget toward negative values beyond pre-industrial variability.[86][87] Black carbon aerosols, stemming from incomplete combustion in diesel engines, biomass burning, and industrial activities, deposit on ice surfaces via long-range atmospheric transport, reducing albedo from typical values of 0.8-0.9 to as low as 0.4-0.6 in affected layers. This lowers shortwave reflectivity, boosting absorbed solar radiation by 10-50 W/m² during melt seasons and hastening ablation; radiative transfer models estimate black carbon's contribution to Arctic snowmelt at 5-20% of total forcing, with deposition fluxes measured at 10-100 micrograms per square meter in Greenland and Svalbard ice cores. In subpolar regions like the Himalayas, where ice caps such as those on Vatnajökull analogously experience deposition, black carbon explains up to 30% of mass loss acceleration since the 1980s, per isotope-traced source apportionment and energy balance reconstructions.[88][89][90] Anthropogenic sulfate aerosols, while exerting a global cooling via scattering, exhibit regionally variable impacts on ice caps through indirect cloud effects and precipitation alterations. In the Arctic, reduced aerosol emissions post-1980s have diminished this masking, unmasking underlying greenhouse warming and correlating with a 10-15% decline in perennial sea ice extent, though land-based ice caps show less direct aerosol-driven melt compared to thermal forcing. Empirical proxies, including aerosol optical depth from AERONET stations and ice core sulfate spikes, confirm human sources dominate northern hemispheric deposition since industrialization, amplifying local melt feedbacks via altered moisture transport.[91][92]Attribution Controversies and Empirical Critiques
Attribution of observed ice cap mass loss to anthropogenic forcing remains contested, with empirical analyses indicating that natural variability accounts for a substantial portion of historical retreat. A 2014 study modeling global glacier response from 1851 to 2010, incorporating both anthropogenic and natural forcings, estimated that only 25% ± 35% of the total mass loss during this period resulted from human-induced climate change, with the remainder driven by natural fluctuations such as post-Little Ice Age recovery.[93] This attribution hinges on glaciers' lagged response times, often spanning decades, meaning contemporary mass deficits largely reflect pre-industrial or early industrial-era warming rather than recent greenhouse gas emissions. Empirical records underscore early 20th-century retreats predating significant anthropogenic CO2 accumulation, which accelerated only after 1950. For instance, widespread glacier recession in the European Alps commenced around 1850, aligning with the termination of cooler Little Ice Age conditions rather than industrial emissions, which were minimal until the mid-20th century.[95] Similarly, North Cascade glaciers in the U.S. exhibited progressive retreat from the 1880s through the 1940s due to regional temperature rises, a pattern observed across mountain and island ice caps without reliance on post-1950 forcing.[96] These pre-acceleration losses challenge models that retroactively assign dominant anthropogenic causality, as natural drivers—including solar irradiance peaks and ocean-atmosphere oscillations like the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation—correlate more closely with early-century trends.[97] Critiques of attribution methodologies highlight over-reliance on temperature-index models, which exhibit nonlinear sensitivity and overestimate mass balance responses to projected warming. Such models, commonly used in large-scale assessments, amplify future melt projections by underweighting precipitation variability and dynamic feedbacks, leading to discrepancies of up to twofold in ensemble simulations for ice cap surface mass balance.[98] Regional empirical data further complicates uniform attribution: while many low-latitude ice caps show accelerated loss since the 1990s, high-Arctic island caps display persistent variability tied to internal climate modes, with some periods of stability or gain offsetting ablation.[99] Detection-attribution frameworks employed by bodies like the IPCC have evolved to claim anthropogenic dominance in recent decades, yet they often marginalize natural forcings' magnitudes, as evidenced by simulations where omitting variability inflates human signal strength.[100] These limitations underscore the need for causal disentanglement beyond correlation, prioritizing verifiable forcing-response linkages over consensus-driven narratives.[101]Types and Variants
Morphological and Structural Variants
Ice caps display morphological variants primarily as dome-shaped masses with central accumulation zones and radial drainage via outlet glaciers or ice streams, submerging underlying terrain except for nunataks. Their extent typically covers less than 50,000 km², distinguishing them from larger ice sheets, with flow patterns minimally constrained by topography. In some cases, ice caps extend into piedmont lobes on adjacent lowlands, forming expansive, bulbous termini as seen in Icelandic examples like Mýrdalsjökull.[12][20][102] Structurally, ice caps vary by thermal regime, influencing basal dynamics and deformation. Cold-based variants maintain temperatures below 0°C throughout, resulting in a frozen bed, negligible sliding, and preservation of subglacial features; examples include high-Arctic ice caps like Grigoriev in Kyrgyzstan. Temperate or warm-based ice caps operate at the pressure-melting point internally, enabling basal sliding and enhanced erosion. Polythermal structures, prevalent in subpolar settings, combine cold upper layers with temperate basal zones, allowing localized sliding amid overall stability, as documented in Patagonian ice caps.[103][104] Internal architecture features primary stratification from annual snowmelt cycles, deformed into longitudinal foliation and flow stripes by shear. Brittle structures include crevasses from tensile stresses, extending 20-30 m deep in temperate zones, while ductile deformation produces folds and shear bands, particularly along ice streams where 90% of discharge occurs. These variants reflect interactions between accumulation, flow, and substrate, with polythermal regimes showing hybrid deformation patterns.[105][106]Climatic and Regional Variants
Ice caps are classified climatically by their thermal regimes, which determine internal temperature structures and flow dynamics. Polar ice caps remain below the pressure melting point (-2°C at surface, colder at base) throughout their mass, exhibiting dry-based conditions with limited basal melt and slow deformation-dominated flow.[107] Polythermal or subpolar ice caps combine a cold upper layer with temperate basal ice at the melting point, enabling seasonal surface meltwater percolation and episodic basal sliding.[107] Temperate ice caps maintain temperatures at the pressure melting point across their entirety, fostering pervasive water content, rapid deformation, and frequent surging due to high sensitivity to summer warming.[107] Regionally, ice caps vary by latitudinal and topographic settings, influencing accumulation patterns and stability. Arctic ice caps, such as those on Baffin and Ellesmere Islands covering over 100,000 km² collectively as of 2000, form in continental interiors with low precipitation but persistent cold, contributing disproportionately to global sea-level rise from peripheral glaciers.[108] Subpolar North Atlantic variants, like Iceland's Vatnajökull spanning 7,900 km² in 2023, experience maritime influences yielding higher snowfall but pronounced ablation from mild winters and volcanic heat fluxes.[10] Antarctic regional ice caps on the peninsula and sub-Antarctic islands, totaling under 1% of continental ice, exhibit marine-terminating margins vulnerable to calving amid regional warming exceeding 3°C since 1950.[7] Montane ice caps in tropical highlands, exemplified by Peru's Quelccaya at 5,600 m elevation holding 40 km³ of ice as measured in 2010, persist via orographic lift despite equatorial proximity, though shrinking at rates up to 0.57 m water equivalent per year from 1978-2006.[1]References
- https://www.[researchgate](/page/ResearchGate).net/publication/264833553_Glaciers_Attribution_of_global_glacier_mass_loss_to_anthropogenic_and_natural_causes