Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-kwdml Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T06:46:37.036Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Cross-borehole resistivity tomography of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

Keleigh Jones
Affiliation:
School of Chemical and Physical Sciences, victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand E-mail: joneskele@myvuw.ac.nz
Malcolm Ingham
Affiliation:
School of Chemical and Physical Sciences, victoria University of Wellington, PO Box 600, Wellington 6140, New Zealand E-mail: joneskele@myvuw.ac.nz
Daniel Pringle
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, PO Box 757320, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA
Hajo Eicken
Affiliation:
Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks, PO Box 757320, Fairbanks, AK 99775-7320, USA
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As an inhomogeneous mixture of pure ice, brine, air and solid salts the physical properties of sea ice depend on its highly temperature-dependent microstructure. Understanding the microstructure and the way it responds to variations in temperature and salinity is crucial in developing an improved understanding of the interaction between sea ice and the environment. However, measurements monitoring the internal structure of sea ice are difficult to obtain without disturbing its natural state. We have recently developed an application of cross-borehole d.c. resistivity tomography to make in situ measurements that resolve the anisotropic resistivity structure of first-year sea ice. We present results from measurements made in 2008 off Barrow, Alaska, and in 2009 off Ross Island, Antarctica. the sea ice in these two regions forms in different environments: at Barrow, relatively quiescent conditions typically lead to a predominance of columnar ice, while more turbulent conditions and underwater ice formation in McMurdo Sound tend to produce a larger component of frazil or platelet ice. Interpretation of the resistivity measurements carried out in association with temperature and salinity data collected simultaneously allows both observation of the temporal evolution of the ice structure and, in the case of the Antarctic measurements, the identification of different ice types.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © the Author(s) [year] 2011
Figure 0

Fig. 1.(a) Vertical sections of the horizontal component of resistivity obtained from 3-D inversion of three datasets of the 2008 Arctic measurements. Contour values are in Ωm, and the ice–water interface is indicated by the dashed line. Horizontal distance is in m. (b) As for (a) but for the geometric mean resistivity. (c) Vertical temperature and brine volume fraction profiles for the dates corresponding to the resistivity models in (a) and (b). the temperature profiles are obtained from thermistor measurements, and the brine volume fractions are calculated from the measured temperature and salinity profiles using the standard relationships given by Cox and Weeks (1983). Black diamonds: 7–9 April; white circles: 8–9 May; grey squares: 28–29 May.

Figure 1

Fig. 2.(a) Vertical sections displaying the estimate of the true geometric mean resistivity for the datasets displayed in Figure 1b. Contour values are in Ωm, and the ice–water interface is indicated by the dashed line. Horizontal distance is in m. (b) As for (a) but for the vertical component of resistivity (calculated from ρH and ρm).

Figure 2

Fig. 3.Plots of formation factor (ρ/ρb) vs brine volume fraction (∅b) in % for (a) horizontal resistivity, (b) geometric mean resistivity and (c) vertical resistivity. Circles: 7–9 April; squares: 8–9 May; triangles: 28–29 May.

Figure 3

Fig. 4.Example of the 2009 Antarctic data. (a) Vertical temperature profile through the ice. (b) Brine volume fraction profile. (c) Vertical section showing the horizontal component of resistivity as obtained from 3-D inversion. Contour values are in Ωm. the ice–water interface at ~2.4m is not shown.