Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-zsp5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T22:00:51.803Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

In situ measurements of the direct-current conductivity of Antarctic Sea ice: implications for airborne electromagnetic Sounding of Sea-ice thickness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 September 2017

J.E. Reid
Affiliation:
School of Earth Sciences, University of Tasmania, Private Bag 79, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia, E-mail: james.reid@utas.edu.au
A. Pfaffling
Affiliation:
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, PO Box 120161, D-27515 Bremerhaven, Germany
A.P. Worby
Affiliation:
Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre and Australian Antarctic Division, Private Bag 80, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
J.R. Bishop
Affiliation:
Mitre Geophysics Pty Ltd, PO Box 974, Sandy Bay, Tasmania 7006, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Airborne, Ship-borne and Surface low-frequency electromagnetic (EM) methods have become widely applied to measure Sea-ice thickness. EM responses measured over Sea ice depend mainly on the Sea-water conductivity and on the height of the Sensor above the Sea-ice–sea-water interface, but may be Sensitive to the Sea-ice conductivity at high excitation frequencies. We have conducted in Situ measurements of direct-current conductivity of Sea ice using Standard geophysical geoelectrical methods. Sea-ice thickness estimated from the geoelectrical Sounding data was found to be consistently underestimated due to the pronounced vertical-to-horizontal conductivity anisotropy present in level Sea ice. At five Sites, it was possible to determine the approximate horizontal and vertical conductivities from the Sounding data. The average horizontal conductivity was found to be 0.017 Sm–1, and that in the vertical direction to be 9–12 times higher. EM measurements over level Sea ice are Sensitive only to the horizontal conductivity. Numerical modelling has Shown that the assumption of zero Sea-ice conductivity in interpretation of airborne EM data results in a negligible error in interpreted thickness for typical level Antarctic Sea ice.

Information

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) [year] 2006 
Figure 0

Fig. 1.(a) Wenner electrode array. Current I is injected through current electrodes C1 and C2. The potential difference, Δv, resulting from the Subsurface current flow is measured between potential electrodes P1 and P2. The ratio Δv/I is the ground resistance R in ohms. (b) Comparison of observed and calculated data for a typical Wenner-array geoelectrical Sounding on Sea ice (site 1b, Table 1). Resistances measured at each electrode Spacing have been transformed to apparent conductivity, as described in the text. The calculated curve is the apparent-conductivity response of the best-fit three-layered model obtained by least-squares inversion of the observed data.

Figure 1

Fig. 2.Plot of Sea-ice thickness interpreted from East Antarctic d.c. geoelectric Soundings vs actual drilled thickness. Thicknesses were obtained from the d.c. Sounding data via inversion of field data assuming a three-layered model, as described in the main text. The Solid line indicates a 1 : 1 correspondence between interpreted and drilled thicknesses. The d.c. conductivity method consistently underestimates the actual Sea-ice thickness mainly as a result of the pronounced vertical to horizontal conductivity anisotropy in undeformed Sea ice.

Figure 2

Fig. 3.Equivalent transversely isotropic (left) and isotropic (right) 1-D d.c. geoelectrical models. For the anisotropic case, σv and σh are the conductivities in the vertical and horizontal directions respectively, and ta is the layer thickness. In the isotropic model, σm and t are the equivalent upper-layer conductivity and thickness respectively. In both models, the conductivity of the bottom layer (sea water) is isotropic.

Figure 3

Table 1.Results of in Situ d.c. conductivity measurements on level East Antarctic pack ice. Measurements were made during the period 26 September–20 October 2003. Temperature (T) was measured at the Snow–sea-ice interface; Sea-water temperature was ≈–1.8˚C. ta is the mean drilled thickness of the Sea ice. t and σm are the Sea-ice thickness and Second-layer conductivity interpreted from d.c. geoelectrical data assuming a layered isotropic model, and S1 is the conductance (conductivity–thickness product) of the first layer. f is the coefficient of anisotropy, and σh and σv are the approximate horizontal and vertical conductivities, calculated as described in the text

Figure 4

Fig. 4.Graph of in Situ Sea-ice conductivity and coefficient of anisotropy vs drilled thickness for five d.c. geoelectrical Soundings on level Sea ice in East Antarctica. σh and σv are the interpreted Sea-ice conductivities in the horizontal and vertical directions respectively. σm is the conductivity of the equivalent isotropically conductive layer and is equal to the geometric mean of the horizontal and vertical conductivities.

Figure 5

Fig. 5.(a) Salinity and temperature profiles measured on a Sea-ice core from Site 1a (Table 1). (b) Bulk Sea-ice conductivity computed from the data in (a) using Archie’s law, for different values of the exponent m. The horizontal dashed lines denote the horizontal (σh) and vertical (σv) conductivities determined from interpretation of the in Situ d.c. geoelectrical Sounding data, as described in the text.

Figure 6

Fig. 6.(a) Salinity and temperature profiles measured on a Sea-ice core from Site 2 (Table 1). (b) Bulk Sea-ice conductivity computed from the data in (a) using Archie’s law, for different values of the exponent m. The horizontal dashed lines denote the horizontal (σh) and vertical (σv) conductivities determined from interpretation of the in Situ d.c. geoelectrical Sounding data.

Figure 7

Fig. 7.Sea-ice conductivity and thickness recovered by inversion of noise-contaminated Synthetic airborne EM data, for a Suite of models in which the Sea-ice thickness and Sea-water conductivities were held fixed at 2m and 2.77 Sm–1 respectively, while the Sea-ice conductivity varied between 0.001 and 0.2 Sm–1. The heavy diagonal line denotes a 1 : 1 relationship between the true and inverted Sea-ice conductivities. The height of the airborne EM System was assumed to be 15 m for all model calculations. A full description of the model parameters and noise levels is given in the text.