<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<DEFANGED_META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<DEFANGED_META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16608" name=GENERATOR>
<!-- <DEFANGED_STYLE> --> </DEFANGED_STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Jeff - We should clarify right from the beginning
what we are talking about. Are Tad and Bob concerned about
"marine-based" small glaciers in the strict sense (ice grounded below
sea level), or "tidewater-calving" small glaciers (not the same thing). I
imagine that the adjective we want is "tidewater-calving". </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>There are plenty of tidewater-calving glaciers
which have no part below sea level. They flow down to the beach, and there
produce icebergs. Then there are the ones which stand in the water (probably the
majority), and finally there are a very few with floating terminal
sections.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Graham.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT><BR><FONT face=Arial
size=2>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>J. Graham Cogley, Ph.D., Professor of
Geography,<BR>Department of Geography, Trent University,<BR>Peterborough,
Ontario, CANADA K9J 7B8.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Fax
705-742-2131<BR>Tel 705-748-1011-x7686<BR>Email </FONT><A
href="mailto:gcogley@trentu.ca"><FONT face=Arial
size=2>gcogley@trentu.ca</FONT></A><BR><FONT face=Arial size=2>Web
</FONT><A href="http://www.trentu.ca/geography/glaciology/glaciology.htm"><FONT
face=Arial
size=2>http://www.trentu.ca/geography/glaciology/glaciology.htm</FONT></A><BR></DIV>
<DIV DEFANGED_STYLE="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message -----
<DIV DEFANGED_STYLE="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B> <A
title=jkargel1054@earthlink.net href="mailto:jkargel1054@earthlink.net">Jeff
Kargel</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>To:</B> <A title=gcogley1@cogeco.ca
href="mailto:gcogley1@cogeco.ca">gcogley1@cogeco.ca</A> ; <A
title=glims@flagmail.wr.usgs.gov href="mailto:glims@flagmail.wr.usgs.gov">GLIMS
mail list</A> ; <A title=cryolist@lists.colorado.edu
href="mailto:cryolist@lists.colorado.edu">Cryolist</A> </DIV>
<DIV><B>Sent:</B> Wednesday, March 05, 2008 4:22 PM</DIV>
<DIV><B>Subject:</B> GLIMS Update: working group on ocean-calving glaciers
(OCG)</DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Dear GLIMS colleagues and Cryolisters,<BR><BR>Bob Bindschadler
wrote this morning:<BR><BR>>I recently attended an Ocean-Ice Interaction
Workshop at NYU. To make a<BR>>long story short, Tad Pfeffer made an
excellent point that if marine-based<BR>>ice is at the crux of near-term
acceleration of sea level--and I believe it<BR>>is--then it would behoove the
glaciology community to get at least a handle<BR>>on how much of the
"glaciers and small ice caps" component of the cryosphere<BR>>falls into this
category. Tad stated that this fraction is not known--at<BR>>all!
I expect he's right. It seems like a perfect tangible task for
GLIMS<BR>>to take a stab at producing at least the percentage of
non-ice-sheet<BR>>involved, if not some other metric such as volume
fraction.<BR><BR>Bob inquired whether GLIMS and others are ready to take on this
task. In project design, we are ready; the database includes parameters
about glacier terminus properties, and people are busy assessing glaciers and
ice caps, including tidewater calving glaciers, and populating the database; and
in our project charter we are supposed to be looking at what Bob suggested,
among other things of course. In practice, we are globally short of
manpower, but we do have people working on the analysis of these glacie<BR>rs,
so far piecemeal. We need something more comprehensive and
consistent.<BR><BR>To add somewhat to what Bob (and Tad) pointed out, most of
the global assessments of small glaciers avoid tidewater glaciers, because of
the obvious complexities, nonlinearities, and natural dynamical oscillations
inherent in these complex systems. But most of the mass balance action
probably is tidewater glaciers, because of their usual large size, proximity to
oceans and hence high accumulation and discharge rates, and the important
influence of oceanic thermal energy. To a lesser but important extent,
<BR>lake and river calving glaciers exhibit some similar phenomenology. The
dynamics are in many ways similar to those of ice shelves and the ice sheets
that feed them.<BR><BR>Given the special nature of tidewater calving glaciers,
and Bob's suggestion, it seems high time that GLIMS and other interested
colleagues form a working group to examine the long-term trending and recent
mass balance record of tidewater calving glaciers. We would isolate
long-term trending from natural dynamical oscillations, and specifically try to
reach an estimation on the current sealevel contributions from tidewater calving
glaciers and small ice caps. We need more manpower in this effort, but we
h<BR>ave to start somewhere, and I think we have critical mass to forge this
group, define its charter, assemble existing assessments of these matters, and
move toward an answer to Bob's and Tad's challenge.<BR><BR>First thing is to
develop a working group, then to establish its specific charter, measurement
goals, reporting expectations, and timeline needed to give policy makers what
they need as soon as possible. We need more manpower, and that's money we
don't have, but let's get a head start on this with what we do
have.<BR><BR>Sorry for double listings between glims and
cryolists.<BR><BR>Sincerely,<BR><BR>Jeff Kargel<BR><BR>
<BR>224.39<BR>X-Barracud<BR></BODY></HTML>