Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T00:09:01.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Iceberg Melt-Driven Convection Inferred from Field Measurements of Temperature

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Edward G. Josberger
Affiliation:
School of Oceanography, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A.
Steve Neshyba
Affiliation:
School of Oceanography, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR 97331, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An expendable bathythermograph (XBT) survey around an iceberg grounded in 100 m of water shows that iceberg melt-driven convection significantly alters the surrounding water properties in two ways, by a general cooling of the water in the upper 40 m by as much as 3 deg and by the formation of isothermal layers with a 5 m vertical-length scale in the pycnocline. Both of these effects become more pronounced as the distance to the iceberg decreases. The overall cooling of the upper layers supports the upwelling concept of Neshyba (1977) and of Josberger and Martin (in preparation*), while the formation of a step-like structure supports the cell formation idea of Huppert and Turner (1978) and Huppert and Josberger (1980).

Synoptic surface surveys around the iceberg show the existence of melt plumes containing water of a lower temperature than the adjacent water, and these plumes are detectable at distances of 0.5 km.

Concentrated rhodamine placed at depths of 14 and 18 m adjacent to an ice wall sloping down-ward at a 30° angle flowed upward along the ice. The dye reached the surface immediately next to the ice in 240 s and 540 s, respectively, to give a characteristic upward velocity of approximately 0.07 m s−1. The dye then dispersed outward away from the iceberg until it was no longer visible.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1980
Figure 0

Fig.l.Tidal heights at Harbor Grace during the experimental study and the location of the XBT casts around the iceberg; the stippled portions of the iceberg were partially submerged.

Figure 1

Fig.2a.The iceberg used in the XBT study.

Figure 2

Fig.2b.The iceberg used in the dye study.

Figure 3

Fig.3a.Temperature differences for casts 9, 10, 11 and 12; and the far-field cast 5; “x”, data from I. Borthwick.

Figure 4

Fig.3b.Temperature differences for casts 15, 6, 14, 7, and 8.

Figure 5

Fig.3c.Temperature differences for casts 3, 2, 4 and 13.

Figure 6

Table I.The Temperature Anomaly Integrated to 60 M For All of the Casts and the Distance of Each Cast From the Iceberg

Figure 7

Fig.4Temperature, salinity, and density in Conception Bay two days after the XBT study, supplied by I. Borthwick.

Figure 8

Fig.5.Surface temperature surveys,---- 10 30 h, 480 m from the iceberg;—— 14 35 h, 50 to 100 m from the iceberg.