Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-w5hgh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T08:45:12.330Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Dynamics of the Late Pleistocene Big Timber Glacier, Crazy Mountains, Montana, U.S.A.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Donald R. Murray
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, U.S.A.
William W. Locke III
Affiliation:
Department of Earth Sciences, Montana State University, Bozeman, Montana 59717, U.S.A.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The late Pleistocene Big Timber glacier of west-central Montana was used as the test case for a model which calculates the mass balance of a paleoglacier using glacial flow theory. Application of Glen’s flow law to a detailed reconstruction of the glacier provided an estimate of the component of mass flux due to internal deformation. Assuming basal slip to be zero where mass flux due to deformation was a maximum, the mass flux at the equilibrium-line altitude (ELA) an ablation gradient of 3.0 ± 0.6 mm/m, and an accumulation gradient of 1.0 ± 0.2 mm/m were determined. Application of the continuity model above and below the ELA generated a second estimate of mass flux at discrete points along the glacier. The difference between deformation flux and continuity flux yields a first approximation of slip, which is highly variable along the glacier. Since the mass-balance gradients are climatically controlled, this model provides information on the paleoclimatic setting of the glacier. The low gradients indicate that, during the last glacial maximum, the east side of the central Rocky Mountains experienced a cold, dry environment much like that of modern-day glaciers in the Brooks Range of Alaska.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © International Glaciological Society 1989
Figure 0

Fig.1.Location, map view, and longitudinal profile of the late Pleistocene Big Timber glacier.

Figure 1

Table.1.Paleoglacier morphology and rheology interpreted from topographic maps and comparison with theoretical values

Figure 2

Fig.2.Difference in elevation between ice center line and ice-marginal features of modern glaciers plotted against elevation relative to the ELA (after Anonymous. 1960).

Figure 3

Fig.3.Calculated effective basal shear stress and mass flux vs distance from the termius. Slip flux is the difference between deformation and continuity fluxes; see text for discussion.

Figure 4

Table.2.Ela locations using each of the methods listed in the text

Figure 5

Fig.4.Hypsometric cune of Big Timber glacier constructed by planimetry of the 400 ft [122 m] contours of the reconstructed glacier ( Fig.1). Elevations of ELAs for various AARs (0.65 shown) were calculated from this curve.

Figure 6

Fig.5.Mass balance of Ihe late Pleistocene Big Timber glacier. The reconstructed surface area (left) and the estimated mass flux at the ELA allow the calculation of average mass-balance gradients (center), thus specific (center) and net balance (right).

Figure 7

Table.3.Average slip velocities below the ela calculated from continuity

Figure 8

Table.4.Error and probability analysis of map-induced errors on basal shear stress and velocity calculations at the ela