449 research outputs found

    Heat flow in the Western Arctic Ocean (Amerasian Basin)

    Get PDF
    Author Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2019. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Journal of Geophysical Research-Solid Earth 124(8), (2019): 7562-7587, doi: 10.1029/2019JB017587.From 1963 to 1973 the U.S. Geological Survey measured heat flow at 356 sites in the Amerasian Basin (Western Arctic Ocean) from a drifting ice island (T‐3). The resulting measurements, which are unevenly distributed on Alpha‐Mendeleev Ridge and in Canada and Nautilus Basins, greatly expand available heat flow data for the Arctic Ocean. Average T‐3 heat flow is ~54.7 ± 11.3 mW/m2, and Nautilus Basin is the only well‐surveyed area (~13% of data) with significantly higher average heat flow (63.8 mW/m2). Heat flow and bathymetry are not correlated at a large scale, and turbiditic surficial sediments (Canada and Nautilus Basins) have higher heat flow than the sediments that blanket the Alpha‐Mendeleev Ridge. Thermal gradients are mostly near‐linear, implying that conductive heat transport dominates and that near‐seafloor sediments are in thermal equilibrium with overlying bottom waters. Combining the heat flow data with modern seismic imagery suggests that some of the observed heat flow variability may be explained by local changes in lithology or the presence of basement faults that channel circulating seawater. A numerical model that incorporates thermal conductivity variations along a profile from Canada Basin (thick sediment on mostly oceanic crust) to Alpha Ridge (thin sediment over thick magmatic units associated with the High Arctic Large Igneous Province) predicts heat flow slightly lower than that observed on Alpha Ridge. This, along with other observations, implies that circulating fluids modulate conductive heat flow and contribute to high variability in the T‐3 data set.B.V. Marshall of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) was critical to the T‐3 heat flow studies and would have been included as a coauthor on this work if he were not deceased. The original T‐3 heat flow data acquisition program was supported by the USGS and by the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory of the Office of Naval Research. Over the decade of USGS research on T‐3 Ice Island, numerous researchers and technical staff, including B.V. Marshall, P. Twichell, D. Scoboria, J. Tailleur, B. Tailleur, and others, spent months on the island and endured difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions to acquire this data set alongside colleagues from other institutions. Outstanding support from the USGS Menlo Park office, transportation and logistics assistance from other U.S. federal government agencies, Arctic expertise supplied by native Alaskan communities, and collaboration with Lamont researchers made this research program possible. B. Lachenbruch and L. Lawver revived interest in this data set in 2016, and they, along with D. Darby and J. K. Hall, provided ancillary information on T‐3 studies. B. Clarke and M. Arsenault assisted with initial data digitization. We thank M. Jakobsson, R. Saltus, and G. Oakey for providing critical shapefiles and other data and R. Jackson and S. Mukasa for clarification on unpublished information. Reviews by J. Hopper, P. Hart, and W. Jokat improved the manuscript, and V. Atnipp Cross and A. Babb were instrumental in completion of data releases. The USGS's Coastal/Marine Hazards and Resources Program supported C.R. and D.H. between 2016 and 2019, and C.R. used office space provided by the Earth Resources Laboratory at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology during completion of this work. Data in Figure 11 were provided by the U.S. Extended Continental Shelf (ECS) Project. The opinions, findings, and conclusions stated herein are those of the authors and the U.S. Geological Survey, but do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. ECS Project. Any use of trade, firm, or product name is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Digital data, metadata, and supporting plots for T‐3 heat flow, navigation, and radiogenic heat content, along with Lamont gravity and magnetics data, are available from Ruppel et al. (2019), and the original T‐3 expedition report with explanatory metadata can be downloaded from Lachenbruch et al. (2019)

    Ice-rich (periglacial) vs icy (glacial) depressions in the Argyre region, Mars: a proposed cold-climate dichotomy of landforms

    Get PDF
    On Mars, so-called “scalloped depressions” are widely observed in Utopia Planitia (UP) and Malea Planum (MP). Typically, they are rimless, metres- to decametres-deep, incised sharply, tiered inwardly, polygonised and sometimes pitted. The depressions seemingly incise terrain that is icy and possibly thermokarstic, i.e. produced by the thermal destabilisation of the icy terrain. Agewise, the depressions are thought to be relatively youthful, originating in the Late Amazonian Epoch.Here, we report the presence of similar depressions in the Argyre region (AR) (30–60° S; 290–355° E). More importantly, we separate and differentiate these landforms into two groups: (ice-rich) periglacial depressions (Type-1); and, (icy) glacial depressions (Type-2a-c). This differentiation is presented to the Mars community for the first time.Based on a suite of morphological and geological characteristics synonymous with ice-complexes in the Lena Peninsula (eastern Russia) and the Tuktoyaktuk Coastlands (Northwest Territories, Canada), we propose that the Type-1 depressions are ice-rich periglacial basins that have undergone volatile depletion largely by sublimation and as the result of thermal destabilisation. In keeping with the terms and associated definitions derived of terrestrial periglacial-geomorphology, ice-rich refers to permanently frozen-ground in which ice lenses or segregation ice (collectively referenced as excess ice) have formed.We suggest that the depressions are the product of a multi-step, cold-climate geochronology:(1) Atmospheric precipitation and surface accumulation of an icy mantle during recent high obliquities.(2) Regional or local triple-point conditions and thaw/evaporation of the mantle, either by exogenic forcing, i.e. obliquity-driven rises of aerial and sub-aerial temperatures, or endogenic forcing, i.e. along Argyre impact-related basement structures.(3) Meltwater migration into the regolith, at least to the full depth of the depressions.(4) Freeze-thaw cycling and the formation of excess ice.(5) Sublimation of the excess ice and depression formation as high obliquity dissipates and near-surface ice becomes unstable.The Type-2 depressions exhibit characteristics suggestive of (supra-glacial) dead-ice basins and snow/ice suncups observed in high-alpine landscapes on Earth, e.g. the Swiss Alps and the Himalayas. Like the Type-1 depressions, the Type-2 depressions could be the work of sublimation; however, the latter differ from the former in that they seem to develop within a glacial-like icy mantle that blankets the surface rather than within an ice-rich and periglacially-revised regolith at/near the surface.Interestingly, the Type-2 depressions overlie the Type-1 depressions at some locations. If the periglacial/glacial morphological and stratigraphical dichotomy of depressions is valid, then this points to recent glaciation at some locations within the AR being precursed by at least one episode of periglaciation. This also suggests that periglaciation has a deeper history in the region than has been thought hitherto. Moreover, if the hypothesised differences amongst the Argyre-based depressions are mirrored in Utopia Planitia and Malea Planum, then perhaps this periglacial-glacial dichotomy and its associated geochronology are as relevant to understanding late period landscape-evolution in these two regions as it is in the AR
    • 

    corecore