Abstract
In the Arctic, subglacial discharge plumes have been recently recognised as a key driver of fjordscale circulation. However, owing to the danger that accompanies prolonged observations at plumes, no timeseries data are available. Here, we present results showing the chaotic and irregular dynamics of a plume revealed by continuous subsurface monitoring directly on the calving front of a Greenlandic glacier. We found intense fluctuations in the current and scalars (temperature and salinity), recognised shallow and deep tidal modulation and anomalies due to coseismic drainage of an icedammed lake via the plume, and observed rapid and marked changes in stratification. Our analysis uncovers energy cascade intermittency with coherent structures, corresponding to upwelling pulses of warm water. Prior to our research, in situ evidence of timevariable plume dynamics was absent and limited to snapshots, therefore, our study and approach will enable researchers to transition from an episodic view of a plume to a continuously updated image.
Introduction
Powerplant chimneys, sewage pipes, forest fires, volcanoes and hydrothermal vents are examples of artificial and natural sources of buoyancydriven turbulent convective plumes (also referred to as gravitational convection^{1}). At the fronts of marineterminating glaciers, plumes are produced by a discharge of low density, buoyant meltwater from conduits at the glacier base. The density contrast between fjordbottom saline water and fresh subglacial discharge continuously drives buoyancy at the submerged foot of a glacier^{2}. The structure of the plumes depends on discharge rates, icecliff/conduit geometry and stratification^{2,3,4}. A growing body of literature indicates a significant influence of upwelling discharge plumes on the dynamics of proglacial fjords^{2,5,6,7,8,9}, which are becoming the last refuge for some Arctic animals as seaice continues to decline and glaciers retreat to land^{10,11,12}. Rising plumes entrain nutrientrich seawater^{9}, and then melt and undercut the glacier front causing calving^{7,8}, the mixing and upward transport of heat, nutrients and zooplankton^{12}, and driving vertical and horizontal fjordscale circulation^{2,5}. Some studies suggest that when fresh water meets deep saline water, zooplankton may experience a socalled ‘osmotic shock’^{10,12}, while fish can be entrained by convection^{13}. Their consequent rapid vertical ascent to the surface makes them easy prey, and leads to the formation of foraging hotspots for seabirds and seals^{10,11,14}. Interestingly, subglacial meltwater plumes might serve as a transport mechanism for seals, who apparently use the plumes for returning to the surface^{14}. The reasons attracting other endemic Arctic marine mammals, such as narwhals, to calving fronts have not yet been established^{15}.
Numerical modelling of plumes and the documenting of water properties by unmanned vehicles^{16,17,18}, helicopters^{4,16,19} and biologging^{14} have clarified some of these processes. Observational and numerical work, which aimed to estimate the response of glacier systems to submarine melt, have indicated the necessity of taking direct measurements in the plumes^{2,3}. However, all efforts thus far have given only instantaneous, noncontinuous data^{4,5,14,16,17,18,19,20}. To our knowledge, continuous, in situ monitoring of the plumes with a sufficiently high temporal resolution, allowing characterisation of abrupt and turbulent dynamics, is lacking. This observational gap is due to the extreme difficulty and danger in conducting continuous fjord observations near the glacier terminus. The crevassed terminus is regularly losing mass through catastrophic iceberg calving events, and the nearby sea surface may be covered by an ice mélange. Here, we resolve this disparity using comprehensive hightemporalresolution observations for July 2017. We deployed sensors from the calving front of Bowdoin Glacier (Kangerluarsuup Sermia in Greenlandic language) directly into the plume surface footprint (Fig. 1). This 3kmwide glacier in Northwest Greenland (Fig. 1) is a typical marineterminating glacier, grounded in a 250mdeep fjord with a tidemodulated ice speed of 1–3 m d^{−1} in summer^{21,22}. The operation was conducted between two major, kilometerscale calving events on 8 July and 1 August (Fig. 1c–e). We hung two sets of sensors from a 30mhigh ice cliff and connected them with individual cables to a recording system that was icescrewed to the glacier surface (Fig. 1c). Every 10 s for 12 days (13–24 July) the first, ‘deep’ sensor recorded temperature, conductivity and pressure at a depth of ~100 m, and the second, ‘shallow’ sensor logged temperature and conductivity at a depth of ~5 m. On July 14, we directly observed, and our highfrequency timelapse cameras, seismometer and lakewaterpressure sensor recorded, the subglacial drainage of an icedammed lake (hereafter Glacial Lake Outburst Flood, GLOF) via the plume with immediate impacts on its intensity (Fig. 2). The lake was located ~2 km from the plume, with an area of 27,000 m^{2} (Fig. 1b) and a water temperature of +1.9 ^{∘}C.
Understanding how plumes behave and evolve is one of the most compelling challenges in present ice–ocean interaction studies, and here we perform a synergistic analysis of this firstofitskind dataset. For our assessment, we acknowledge the spiky (intermittent) appearance of the timeseries, which indicates turbulence and could mistakenly be interpreted as being stochastic rather than deterministic (Supplementary Fig. 1). Therefore, we employed a combination of statistical, nonlinear, waveletbased, spectral, seismic and other signal/imageprocessing approaches, as detailed in Methods, together with a description of our observations and data handling.
Results and discussion
Continuous plume monitoring: GLOF anomaly, an abrupt stratification change and tidal modulation
The outburst of the same icedammed marginal lake was witnessed on 6 July 2016^{18}, supported by a photogrammetrically inferred lake volume (~190,000 m^{3}) and a computed mean daily melt rate of glaciers discharging meltwater into Bowdoin Fjord through three plumes (~6.4 × 10^{6} m^{3} d^{−1} or ~265,000 m^{3} h^{−1} or ~74 m^{3} s^{−1})^{18}. In July 2017, the lake was approximately twice its former size due to differences in the shapes of the ice margin and the lake, and only two plumes were visible (Fig. 1b). Assumption of a drainage of 380,000 m^{3} (i.e. a twice larger volume than in 2016) within 8.5 h at a constant rate yields a subglacial discharge of ~45,000 m^{3} h^{−1} (or ~12 m^{3} s^{−1}). The partitioning of total meltwater discharge between the two plumes is unknown. A 1:1 partitioning would imply that the flux from the GLOF could increase the average subglacial discharge driven by surface melting^{18} by an additional flux of ~34%. This value is nonnegligible, and could suddenly overwhelm the subglacial drainage system, especially as it might be considered the lower boundary. More specifically, (1) the volume of the lake could be larger than the assumed one (the depth of the lake increases on the ice side due to the valley slope); (2) the baseline drainage rates via the monitored plume could be smaller than 50% of the total because it had a smaller surface footprint than the second plume (Fig. 1b); and (3) the peak discharge rate from the lake could be nonconstant and higher than the estimated one. For example, the seismic signal of the GLOF increased with time (Fig. 2c). Moreover, timelapse imagery shows that concentric surface ripples from the plume intensified during the GLOF (after 22:40, 14 July; Supplementary Movie 1).
Trajectories of the deep sensor in temperature–salinity–pressure space (Fig. 3) show recurrent dynamics mixed with highly irregular motion triggered by the GLOF with several ejections and departures of the sensor towards the surface by iceberg pull and current pulses (Supplementary Movies 2–4).
Overall, the deep sensor exhibited a narrow variance in temperature and salinity, and showed a drop in salinity of 1 PSU lasting at least half a day after the GLOF (Fig. 3). For more than 80% of the timeseries duration, the sensor probed depths of >80 m where we observed temperature oscillation between −1.5 and −0.5 ^{∘}C and an average salinity was 33.66 PSU (Fig. 3d–f). As the GLOFinduced outward push of the plume was halted, water and floating ice rushed back to the calving front (in accordance with a plumesubduction theory^{23}), causing surface warming and a freshening for 3 h (Fig. 3a–b; Supplementary Movie 1).
The shallow sensor showed wide variation in temperature and salinity (Fig. 3d and e), with a notable +1.8^{∘}C change on 16 July and freshening afterwards (Fig. 3a and b). This coincided with a 2^{∘}C increase in the mean air temperature and arrival of new fjordsurface water to the area, which replaced ice mélange with outside seaice floes (Fig. 4 and Supplementary Movie 1).
Surprisingly, this surface transition was associated with a dramatic change in the motion dynamics of the deep sensor. In particular, we detected a shift in the statistical properties of the rate of pressure change (e.g. positive for descent, negative for ascent; Supplementary Fig. 1a). To reveal this feature, we first removed all amplitude information completely (i.e. data spikes) by applying onebit normalisation in which signal amplitudes became ±1, which is a common technique in seismology. Second, we focused on the temporal variability of such statistical measures as skewness, representing the asymmetry of variable distributions. Onebitnormalised skewness for the rate of pressure change (Supplementary Fig. 1c) was notably negative after 16 July, implying that the sensor spent more time ascending amidst rare periods of rapid descent. Before this date, the skewness was less stable and less predictable. The observed abrupt surface warming on 16 July corresponds to stronger stratification, which is known to inhibit upwelling^{2,4,24}. Therefore, the resulting vertical compression of the plume is inferred to have controlled this response of the deep sensor. The exact mechanisms are difficult to constrain; however, we suggest that lowering of the plume top relative to the deep sensor (on a cable of a fixed length) somehow led to relatively stable gliding of the sensor in the plume.
It is known that ocean tides modulate ice motion and water circulation, however, there is a limited number of direct measurements near the calving fronts of marineterminating glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica^{21,22,25,26,27}. Both the shallow and deep datasets were tidemodulated, as deduced from autocorrelation and waveletbased semblance analysis comparing timeseries with ocean tides (see Methods). The former was able to detect tidal modulation only in shallowsensor data (Supplementary Fig. 2), while the latter was particularly helpful for understanding deepsensor data, allowing comparison of datasets of distinctly different types and accounting for the temporal variability of wavelength (Fig. 5). From direct GPS measurements, it is known that the terminus of Bowdoin Glacier is almost grounded^{21,22}. For example, in July 2017, the terminus had a negligible tidemodulated vertical motion of <2 cm^{26} (i.e. two orders of magnitude smaller than the tidal amplitude). Therefore, shallow signals were correlated with the tidal amplitude, owing to a deepening of the sensor into colder, saltier water at high tide as the water level rose around the sensor (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 2). In contrast, the deep temperature data was negatively correlated with tidal rates of change, with temperature decreasing during rising tides, and vice versa. A weak positive semblance between tidal rate and pressure was also observed in the deep sensor data (Fig. 5), with the sensor probing deeper water during a rising tide, which we interpret as a dynamic deformation of the plume by the inflowing/outflowing tidal stream before and after a period of slack water.
Upward loops yield natural timelapsed profiling of the water column
Ascents of the deep sensor eventually yielded timelapsed profiling of the water column, with ‘fingerprints’ of the plume’s dynamics (Fig. 6). Specifically, we note (i) a downward shift of the coldwater layer (50–75 m depth) by ~25 m during the period after the steplike surface warming (after 16 July), and (ii) shortterm upward loops that are similar across different scales. The loops consistently exhibit recurrent features of ascent into cold, lowsalinity water and descent into warm, saline water several minutes later. Such rapid and unexpected changes (1.0 ^{∘}C, 0.25 PSU) are due to entrainment of the sensor by a pulse of upwelling into Polar Water followed by the sensor’s descent into water influenced by Atlantic Water^{9,24}. Occasionally, the sensor moves via convection of water that is 0.5^{∘}C warmer than that of the same depths during descent (60–80 m), which explains the wide range in the temperature profiles (Fig. 3j). Sinking can be interrupted or slowed by entrainment into consecutive pulses. The recorded pressure oscillations and the observed inclination of the cable outward from the ice cliff characterised the motion of the deep sensor, with these being used to estimate current drag (see Methods). The equivalent horizontal flow rate necessary to produce the observed motion of the deep sensor is 1–2 m s^{−1} (Fig. 7).
State–space reconstruction by nonlinear timeseries analysis
From the preceding two sections we recognise that our next task is to reconstruct the highdimensional nonlinear behaviour of the dynamic system from scalar measurements. A solution to this nontrivial problem of deciphering quasiperiodic and irregular signals is a key question in nonlinear timeseries analysis. An interesting feature of this growing discipline is ‘timedelay embedding’, which is used, for example, in electrocardiogram analysis (a brief introduction is provided in Methods). To unravel the complexity of data from both sensors, we unfold (or reconstruct) the timeseries through timedelay embedding into the corresponding phase–state space. The essence of this framework is a graphical representation of the states of the underlying system (usually in 3D), which are best understood when animated (see Methods). We stress that this powerful tool requires a substantial effort on the part of the operator to visually inspect the dynamic features, and a major portion of what follows simply describes Supplementary Movies 5–9, which provide the most intuitive illustration of our analysis.
To provide a visual summary of the dynamics revealed by the five timeseries (i.e. shallowsensor temperature and salinity, and deepsensor pressure, temperature and salinity), we were able to project our analysis onto a plane (Fig. 8) using the following steps: (1) we used a conventional representation of each timeseries embedded in 2D, collapsing the 12 days of measurements together (upper subplots of Fig. 8a–e); (2) we created a 3D version of the same result, but using time as the z axis to reveal the extreme amount of otherwise hidden temporal variability in the behaviour of the system (lower subplots of Fig. 8f–j); and (3) to aid visual distinction of different water masses, we added the fourth dimension by using colour to indicate water temperature. This approach (detailed in Methods) allows visualisation of an overview of phase states, and of a particular state at a particular time across all five timeseries. Hereinafter, by ‘phases’ or ‘states’ we refer to a set of conditions to which the system tends to converge, also called ‘strange attractors’ in chaos and nonlinear studies; and refer to notable jumps from one state to another as ‘phase transitions’. Attractors are revealed by specific recurrent, but not exactly repeated, pathways of the system, which are also termed ‘trajectories’.
The resulting shapes of the revealed phase–spaces are different among our timeseries because each scalar is travelling through a unique scalar field, like pressure or temperature. For example, as detailed below, the deep pressure measurements trace a cone representing the sensor’s motion (Fig. 8a); in contrast, the deep temperature data trace a square due to travelling of the sensor between two different water masses with varying duration of stay within each of them (Fig. 8b).
The phase–space trajectories of the deep sensor data
Even when the deep sensor is episodically disturbed, the pressure values exhibit a coneshaped region of the phase space, where closeby trajectories (i.e. recurrent orbits) converge (Fig. 8a). The tendency towards this specific state (i.e. a strange attractor) is due to a balance between the downward gravitational force and the upward drag of the plume and icebergs, which occasionally tugged on the sensor’s cable. The state–space trajectories are smooth, as expected for sufficiently sampled sensor motion underwater (Supplementary Movie 5). In the evening of 14 July, the onset of perturbations leading to temporary divergence from the attractor coincided with the GLOF event (Fig. 8f; Supplementary Movie 5). At the end of the GLOF, the trajectories settled into a deep, calm vertex of the attractor for approximately half of a day (Fig. 8a), before being quickly ejected up to the water surface followed by a continuation of wideloop, selfsimilar trajectories (Fig. 8f; Supplementary Movie 5). The latter prolonged ejection, with a squarelike trajectory, was most likely due to an iceberg pulling the cable (14:38–16:17, 15 July). The amplitude of perturbations gradually decreased towards the end of the observations (Fig. 8f).
Reconstruction of a state space for deepsensor temperature (Figs. 8b and g; Supplementary Movie 6) showed that the initial state (~−0.6 ^{∘}C) was perturbed by the GLOF, which pushed the sensor upwards into slightly colder water (~−1.0 ^{∘}C). After a transitional period of ~9 h, the sensor reached deep water with the highest temperature for this depth (~−0.4 ^{∘}C; Figs. 8b and f), before a change of state back to the initial attractor, but from then on displaying occasional looplike (10–15 min long) fluctuations into colder (but shallower and less dense) water (~−1.5 ^{∘}C).
Timedelay embedding of deepsensor salinity showed the most drastic phase transition due to the GLOF (Figs. 8c and h; Supplementary Movie 7). First, the state of the initial small attractor (33.7 PSU) was destabilised. Second, after the end of the GLOF, after an elapsed time of 9 h, the system transitioned through a narrow bottleneck into the second attractor of lower salinity (32.7 PSU; termed ‘postGLOF anomaly’ and marked with a circle in Fig. 8c), corresponding to the greatest depth (Fig. 8a). Afterwards, the initial state was then reestablished, but was frequently perturbed by brief departures of ~−0.2 PSU from the centre, characterised by oscillations between a warm, saline attractor and a cold, lesssaline repeller; i.e. an antiattractor or set of conditions where the system does not ‘want’ to remain (Fig. 8h). During the prolonged phase transition and orbit within the secondary attractor (Fig.8c), the sensor probed fresh water during occasional ascents (limited to depths of >80 m), at depths that had higher salinity before and after this anomaly (except brief passages of similar water during manual profiling; Fig. 3k and Methods). This suggests that after the GLOF, the sensor was most likely trapped in an icecliff cavity between the ice and the upwelling core with an anomalously high ratio of freshwater (~3%) for such depths^{24}, until it was released by the aforementioned iceberg. Compared with pressure and temperature, the temporal evolution of salinity exhibited trajectories that were less smooth, although even with jumplike dynamics the data points recorded within a 1minute interval are clustered together (Figs.8c and h; Supplementary Movie 7).
The phase–space trajectories of the shallow sensor data
The embedded shallow salinity and temperature sensor showed less evidence for perturbation by the GLOF and larger amplitudes of variability relatively to the deep sensor (Figs. 8d, e, i and j); however, a slight decrease in temperature and concurrent increase in salinity were observed during the GLOF (Supplementary Movies 8 and 9). Similar changes could be produced by a rising tide by deepening the sensor into slightly colder and saltier water. However, the observed changes took place during the falling tide, which should produce the opposite effect (Fig. 5), suggesting that the GLOF brought entrained cold and saline water to the surface, as previously observed at Narsap Sermia Fjord^{13}.
The most significant departure from the initial state is observed in the afternoon of 16 July, when temperature rose from about 0 to +2 ^{∘}C (Figs. 8d and e) and salinity dropped by 3 PSU (Figs. 8i and j). We note that after this departure, the deep sensor maintained a negative skew in the rate of change in pressure (Supplementary Fig. 1c).
More extreme intrusions of fresh water began after 20 July, and early in the morning on July 23 the system moved into a new highly unstable, lowsalinity attractor (25 PSU, +5 ^{∘}C; Figs. 8d and e). The presence of such warm water at this shallow depth indicates that after 17 July, nearsurface fjord conditions dominated the behaviour (Figs. 8i and j). The only exception was observed after an episode of strong northwest wind (18 July, 14:30–18:30; Supplementary Movies 3–4 and Supplementary Fig. 3). A few hours later, at around 22:00, ascent of the deep sensor up to almost 30 m depth was followed by a 2 ^{∘}C decrease in temperature and a 1.5 PSU increase in the shallowsensor salinity lasting at least 15 h (Figs. 8i and j). This transition could be seen in the timeseries (marked with circles in Figs. 3g and h), and led to an increase in density (Fig. 3i). It was also associated with a change in skewness and kurtosis of the shallow salinity observations (i.e. statistical measures describing the shape of a distribution; Supplementary Fig. 1c). This suggests a temporarily weakened stratification on July 19, which was likely preconditioned by a wind shear stress at the water surface (for more details on the potential wind forcing, refer to a phenomenon of upwelling due to the Ekman drift^{28}).
Power spectra and energy cascade
Timeseries spectra were highly variable (Fig. 9). All deep sensor spectra were relatively smooth, whereas the shallow sensor spectra displayed a broad peak around 10 min with a steeper rolloff at high frequencies. For deep signals, a strong rise and steepening of spectra could be observed for all tracers during the GLOF. Deep pressure spectra were the steepest and lacked energy at periods shorter than ~7 min, presumably because of the dampened response of the system underwater (e.g. drag on the cable might have limited the ability of the sensor to respond promptly).
Comparison of the global median spectra with particular episodes (i.e. before/during/after the GLOF), demonstrates the difficulty in understanding the activity of the plume from spectra alone. This is particularly true for the shallow signals, which were dominated by surface processes caused by lateral transport of water along the front, when the sensor might not be reached by the plume. For example, we sometimes observed a counterclockwise gyre in front of the plume (15 July; Supplementary Movie 1), indicating that horizontalshearinduced turbulence could influence shallow spectra.
The presence of a powerlaw scaling and approach to the –5/3 spectral slope, especially for the deepsensor instantaneous conductivity measurements (Fig. 9), is in line with the Kolmogorov turbulence theory for a socalled inertial subrange of a direct energy cascade^{29}. The cascade represents scalefree transmission of externally injected energy between largescale structures (or eddies) and smaller structures, and is bounded by a socalled dissipation range, where mechanical energy is converted to thermal through viscous molecular friction. The shallow signals, however, could be influenced by mechanisms such as shear near the cliff and 2D turbulence, which is known to form a split cascade with energy transfer in both directions^{30}. A lack of intermittency and a Gaussian distribution are properties of an inverse energy cascade in 2D turbulence^{30}, which we, however, did not observe (Supplementary Fig. 1).
Autocorrelation as a measure of the ‘memory’ of the flow
Since the passage of disturbance (e.g. a cyclone) over a receiver takes time, signal autocorrelation can be considered a measure of the ‘memory’ of the flow (see Methods for details). The dynamic autocorrelation structure of the data shows correlation up to 300 s (Fig. 10) and highlights the occurrence of coherent events. Median integral time scales, \(\hat{\tau }\) (defined by Methods’ Eq. 2), were between ~28 and 140 s. For the deep sensor, the longest \(\hat{\tau }\) were observed for pressure measurements (140 s), the shortest \(\hat{\tau }\) were typically observed for salinity (28 s), and the temperature was 110 s. For the shallow sensor, in general, variability in integral timescales was narrower than that for the deep sensor. Moreover, in the shallow sensor, the \(\hat{\tau }\) of salinity (48 s) was also shorter than that for temperature (66 s). Integraltimescale separation between slow temperature and fast salinity is pronounced at the deep sensor, whereas the shallow data do not exhibit such separation.
The difference between shallow versus deep autocorrelations suggests that individual flow structures could not be detected upstream because they either evolve or did not travel between the two sensors (e.g. the halocline at ~15 m depth could have been a barrier).
In general, using a comparison of the statistical properties of the dominant \(\hat{\tau }\), pressure appears to be a slowly changing process while salinity appears to rapidly change. This result is reasonable because the motion of the sensor in the fluid is smooth due to drag forces, whereas turbulent salinity microstructures (with sharp gradients) can pass through the instrument much more quickly. Owing to the highfrequency variability (also seen in our PSD results as shallower spectral slopes; Fig. 9) the system ‘forgets’ its previous state quickly.
According to Taylor’s hypothesis of frozen turbulence^{31}, the largest integral timescales can be related to length scales using the average flow velocity, \(\overline{u}\), as \(L=\hat{\tau }\overline{u}\). This assumption about flow advecting the turbulence is the only possibility for estimating spatial information from singlepoint timeseries data and may not be valid in all cases^{32}. For a sensor dragged through a passing fluid with uncertain velocity within a layered structure, the above assumption is not trivial, as it may correspond to modified correlation lengths. Taking into account these caveats, and assuming a velocity of 1.5 m s^{−1}, the dominant length scales of coherent disturbances are between ~40 and 210 m, depending on the scalar. The choice of velocity is necessarily arbitrary, although, it is generally representative of inverted current speeds (Fig. 7), and modelling studies have used values of 0.3–3.1 m s^{−1} at the source of a plume^{16}. However, the estimated length scales are reasonable as the largest eddy scale is expected to be limited by the water depth (~200 m).
Furthermore, autocorrelation results show the existence of oscillatory features (Fig. 10): where the shape of the autocorrelation after the first zero crossing may have temporally persistent structures repeating periodically. This could represent a population of similarscale eddies passing through the sensor in a sequence train. Such eddies play a dominant role in the entrainment process by engulfing external fluid^{33}.
Implications, conclusions and outlook
This study provides the first example of continuous oceanographic monitoring in the most difficult of cryospheric environments. Calving fronts remain among the leastexplored oceanic zones, with the main implications of the study being instrumental, methodological, and physical, as follows.

1.
To obtain in situ observations at the calving front of a Greenlandic marineterminating glacier, we pioneered a novel instrumental approach and incorporated our observations into the most comprehensive plumemonitoring campaign to date (Fig. 1b), including the first simultaneous monitoring of both water intake and output (lake and plume, respectively). This hightemporalresolution dataset may become an important reference for numerical simulations and followup studies.

2.
We developed new methodology for deciphering oceanographic Lagrangian records of convoluted fluid and solid interaction through nonlinear timeseries analysis (i.e. timedelay embedding), allowing observation and characterisation of a deterministically chaotic system (Fig. 8). This framework is unconventional in fluid mechanics, geophysics, and oceanography, but has the potential to become a powerful analytical tool in geoscience.

3.
Our sensor data provide a complex portrait of plume and fjord dynamics with a rich diversity of processes operating on short timescales, which have been undocumented to date (as detailed below). For example, a sudden eruption of a subglacial discharge plume is a lowfrequency coseismic process (Fig. 2) accompanied by intensified watersurface ripples (see Supplementary Movie 1 or Fig. 1i illustrating the general view of such ripples), with seismic and seasurfaceheight observations thus opening new avenues for better understanding of the plumes.
To contextualise our observations for submarine melt, we note that previous studies of ice–ocean interaction have been based on two fundamental elements: (1) limited and rare conductivitytemperaturedepth (CTD) casts representing background stratification in models; and (2) subglacial discharge calculated from runoff simulations^{4,5,16,24}. These two fundamental elements have been indispensable for learning a lot about the firstorder dynamics of ice–ocean interactions, especially in the longterm. Our study results indicate that, at least in the shortterm, neither of these elements is completely valid, because stratification can change within a few days. A single CTD cast per summer season provides a limited representation of conditions, and glaciallake outburst floods can cause major disruptions to stratification. This is of importance to our understanding of submarine melting. For example, even if a single CTD cast could provide a reasonable representation of the slowly changing deeper water masses throughout the time period, an abrupt ~25mdownward shift of stratification (Fig. 6a) means that, near the surface, the contact area between the relatively warm water of the fjord and the ice cliff increases by ~70,000 m^{2} along the 2.8kmwide terminus. It also raises the question of how such a sudden shift enhances undercutting (i.e. icecliff overhanging) and impacts stress distribution associated with crevassing and calving. This highlights the necessity of further continuous subsurface observations for verifying how widespread and frequent such changes are, and what their longterm impact is.
Other questions arise from evidence of the tidal modulation (Fig. 5 and Supplementary Fig. 2). For example, the influence of tides on plumes and melting does not seem to have been addressed in Greenland, but is recognised as an important driver of subaqueous melt for ice shelves fringing Antarctica^{27}. Tideinduced currents and vertical motion of background stratification may deform the plume and modulate local melt rates, requiring further indepth studies.
In addition, we suggest that the plume is also influenced by wind forcing (Figs. 3g–i and Supplementary Fig. 3). This further highlights that current models of convective plumes are lacking some processes. Considering that the ocean is strongly influenced by wind shear near the surface, the role of wind remains to be understood.
At fine scales, our spectralanalysis results (i.e. tracer variance) are consistent with a direct cascade of energy (Fig. 9). Turbulence has long fascinated scientists searching for its universal properties, one of which is the cascade. We acknowledge that, because of the buoyancy and shearing of rising water, highenergy turbulence in the plume was expected and assumed by the research community. However, there has been little in situ evidence that characterised the plume as a turbulent flow. Ocean turbulence is generally fundamental to heat and matter transport and has different regimes, many of which remain unexplored and are difficult to assess. Our results imply that the celebrated Kolmogorov1941 framework^{29} extends to turbulent plumes, which is a far removal from the idealised turbulent flows for which the framework was originally postulated.
On the one hand, the spectral statistical similarity to conventional turbulent flows is an aid to parametrising subglacial discharge plumes in numerical models; on the other hand, in addition to GLOFlike runoff events, the occasional current pulse means that the assumption of subglacial discharge being a steadystate process might not hold, at least during the period of our observations.
The lack of direct velocity measurements means it is difficult to use our experimental results to evaluate previous models, particularly those involving turbulent entrainment parameterisations. Buoyantplume theory is intended mainly to represent the broad outlines of a convective plume dynamics without resolving the mechanics of individual turbulent eddies being necessary^{1}. Such turbulent gravitational convection theories are relevant to plumes that have reached a steady state. The highenergy, intermittent turbulence shown here suggests that such a state could be unattainable. We also note that timelapse photography of the plume area (Supplementary Movie 1) shows an overwhelmingly complex highfrequency temporal variation in conditions near the calving front. This implies that some dynamical effects, such as those caused by episodes of intensified entrainment, might be overlooked. It may, therefore, be unrealistic to assume a certain entrainment rate, with only numerical experiments involving an intermittent buoyancy flux from the source clarifying impacts on a plume’s longterm role in a fjord.
There is also a broad spectrum of processes missed by simplified numerical treatment of the plume. For example, turbulent structures are known to continuously shape the geometry of rivers^{34}, and this should also apply to icecliff morphology. The efficiency of the plume in melting the ice (icecliff face, sea ice, icebergs, and ice mélange), entraining water, and transporting suspended matter to the surface strongly depends on turbulence. Furthermore, a growing body of literature highlights the importance of turbulence to marine organisms and ecosystems. For example, turbulence induces active adaptation of zooplankton to control their distributions and the dispersal of their populations^{35}, and evolution of chemotactic algorithms for plumesource tracking by many animals^{36}. Only eddyresolving models can be used to study such processes in detail.
In the light of the evidence presented here and discussion of the potential impacts of the highfrequency variability on submarine melting and material fluxes, the data demonstrate a need for the consideration of intermittent turbulence, dayscale variability in stratification, and tidal/wind effects in models developed to quantify nutrient fluxes and plumedriven melting, which are of major importance to biogeochemistry, glacier retreat, and sealevel rise^{4,37}. We acknowledge that there is a need to understand how (or if) such highfrequency variability influences the longerterm mean processes and how this behaviour could be realistically included into largescale models of the ocean or ice sheet.
We anticipate our observations will constitute an urgently needed first step towards establishing constraints for nextgeneration eddyresolving models, which are required for understanding key processes such as glacier subaqueous melt and water circulation and mixing, as well as the effects on marine biology. Hopefully, such work will increase our ability to reliably predict the response of tidewater glaciers to warming, estimate their contribution to sealevel rise, and forecast the evolution of fjord ecosystems.
Methods
Seismic and lake measurements
To record glaciohydraulic tremor, we installed a seismic station directly on the ice, about 300 m upglacier from the plume. A threecomponent Lennartz LE3D shortperiod sensor (eigenperiod of 1 s; flat response between 1 and 100 Hz), connected to a DATACUBE^{3} recorder, a battery, and a solar panel, was placed in a shallow ice pit on a metal tripod and covered with a highalbedo protective blanket. The station operated with a sampling frequency of 400 Hz. The instrumentcorrected signal was converted to velocity and then bandpassfiltered (0.3–1.0 Hz) with a zerophaseshift, 4thorder Butterworth filter. The spectrogram was constructed using 1hlong windows with 50% overlap.
We recorded temperature and water pressure every minute using a sensor (HOBO U20, Onset Co.) installed at the coast of the icedammed lake approximately 420 cm below the lake surface. An impulse wave generated by calving of marginal dead ice into the lake on 14 July (00:41) displaced the sensor. Near the end of the drainage of the lake (14 July, 23:25), receding water stranded the sensor. We converted the data to water level by removing the standard atmospheric pressure, P_{SAP} and converting the remaining pressure to equivalent water height (using h_{w} = (P_{Total} − P_{SAP})/ρ_{w}g, where ρ_{w} is the density of fresh water and g is the acceleration due to gravity).
Timelapse photographs (4000 × 3000 pixels) of the icedammed lake were taken using a GARMIN VIRB^{®}XE camera with a 2.62 mm lens and GPS clock. The camera was installed on rock, powered by a battery and a solar panel, and captured images every minute. Vertical slices of an ice cliff (60 × 100 pixels) were cropped from 4,320 photographs (taken between 00:00, 13 July and 00:00, 16 July) and aligned to complement the missing pressuresensor data (from sensor displacement discussed above) and highlight the overall waterlevel change associated with drainage.
Fjord observations
Conductivity plus temperature and pressure were measured with a conductivity sensor (4419RB) and a pressure sensor (4117BR), respectively (by Aannderaa Data Instruments, Norway). Both sensors had RS–422 fullduplex interfaces for use with long cables. Sensors were anchored by ~5 kg weights (rockfilled bags) and connected with cables (diameter: 8.3 mm, weight: 0.1 kg m^{−1}) to the SmartGuard recorder (Extended version 5300 by Aannderaa Data Instruments), which was powered by an external battery and a solar panel. Resolutions of conductivity, temperature, and pressure were ±0.0002 S/m, ±0.01 ^{∘}C and ±0.0001% of the full scale output (FSO; 0–4000 kPa range), respectively. Accuracies of conductivity, temperature and pressure were ±0.0018 S/m, ±0.05 ^{∘}C and ±0.02% of FSO, respectively.
The pressure sensor had an instantaneous response time. The response time (90%) of conductivity measurements was less than 3 s, whereas the response time (63.2%) of temperature measurements was less than 10 s. In other words, relative to the adopted sampling rate of 10 s, pressure and conductivity can be seen as fastresponse, instantaneous sensors; the thermistor, however, could have a lag of a few tens of s and therefore a lack of energy at frequencies higher than 0.02 Hz due to the instrument response. This mismatch in the response of conductivity and temperature measurements implies that the calculated salinity inevitably becomes their composite^{38}. However, we note that heat has higher diffusivity than salt by two orders of magnitude (different Batchelor scales)^{39}, which may correspond to smoothing of temperature gradients but sharper salinity features, and thus may lead to fast, noninstrumental disappearance of highfrequency content in the temperature spectra.
On three occasions (one in the middle of the GLOF event; Fig. 3j–i), the deep sensor was manually moved up and down for vertical profiling, consistently yielding warm ascent (−0.5 ^{∘}C) and cold (−1.5 ^{∘}C) descent temperatures from depths at 50 to 75 m, respectively (14 July, 18:39–19:18; 15 July, 18:26–19:01; 16 July, 19:33–20:56). As a preparatory test (i.e. to prepare the operators for manual vertical profiling involving long cables), the deep sensor was moved up and down for 1 m, 1 m, and 10 m, respectively (14 July, 16:31, 16:34, 16:43). Only the last test was recognisable in the pressure signal.
On 24 July 2017, a conductivitytemperaturedepth (CTD) cast was collected using an ASTD 102 JFE Advantech profiler from a boat in the middle of the fjord, 1.4 km from the terminus (Fig. 1b; see^{9,40} for sampling details).
Two unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) were used (Fig. 1f–h). The vertical takeoff and landing, fixedwing UAV ‘WingtraOne’ (www.wingtra.com) was used to conduct a photogrammetric survey on 7 July. The fixedwing UAV ‘SenseFly eBee’ (www.sensefly.com) was used to conduct surveys on 13 and 14 July. The UAVs were both programmed to take aerial photographs with an overlap of 90% in flight direction and 75% in crossflight direction. Orthoimages of the calving front with a resolution of 0.5 m were processed from UAV aerial images by structurefrommotion photogrammetry using Agisoft PhotoScan software (www.agisoft.com).
Timelapse photographs (7952 × 5304 pixels) of the calving front were taken every minute from Sentinel Nunatak (Fig. 1) by a Sony ILCE7RM2 camera with a Sony FE 28 mm F2.0 lens and an external GPS clock (4–17 July). To zoom into the location of the plume setup, sections of the photograph [1100 × 367 pixels] were cropped. Additional timelapse photographs (1280 × 1024 pixels) of the plume area were taken every 5 or 15 min from the southeast side of the fjord by two colocated GardenWatch cameras (Brinno Co.) with 5.01 mm focal length and a handwatchset clock (time precision ±30 s; 16 July to 01 August). Photographs were synchronised with deepsensor pressure, shallowsensor temperature, tide, and air temperature, and were compiled as Supplementary Movies 1, 3, and 4. To highlight changes, each image was converted to grey scale and subtracted from the previous image.
Conversion of data
Strong tidal modulation of the shallow sensor signals (see below) suggested variable depths of measurement caused by waterlevel oscillation above the sensor. To estimate the variation of depth with time, we modulated the initial deployment depth (5 m) by the tidal amplitude measured at Thule (the same phase and amplitude as at Bowdoin Fjord;^{22,41}), yielding depths between 4 and 7 m.
Eulerian representations of the Lagrangian dataset are provided in Fig. 3g–h and j–k. In addition, we calculate water salinity and density^{42,43}. Density is controlled mainly by salinity and density variability corresponds to timevarying stratification and noise (Fig. 3l). In particular, we note that for the deep sensor, the crosscorrelation identified a 10–20 s (1–2 samples) lag of temperature behind conductivity owing to a slower thermistor response at cold temperatures and high pressures (Supplementary Fig. 4). Nonconsideration of this lag leads to a mismatch and numerous, spurious spikes in defaultrecordercomputed salinity exceeding 34.2 PSU (pressure set to 0 kPa), which could be misidentified as entrained Atlantic Water. To address this issue, we adopted a shift in temperature by –20 s as it reduces highfrequency pollution in computed salinity, and we used this shift in computation throughout the paper. Furthermore, we consider timevarying pressure in all salinity computations.
Autocorrelation
The autocorrelation coefficient corresponds to a normalised correlation of a variable with itself and is defined by:
where τ is the time lag, σ^{2} is the variance (the rootmeansquare of x), and 〈 ⋅ 〉 represents averaging. According to Schwartz’ inequality, ∣R∣ ≤ 1 for all τ.
If the sampling rate is sufficient, eddies passing through a point correspond to a noninstantaneous change, and thus the signal remains correlated to the previous timestep. For example, large structures, like synopticscale eddies, need a long time to pass by^{44}. Therefore, the rate of decorrelation can be seen as a measure of the ‘memory’ of the flow. Fluctuations in random (or undersampled) signals decorrelate quickly with the lag τ.
The integral time scale of a variable is:
We follow^{45} and take T corresponding to the first zero crossing (i.e. R (t, T) = +0).
For a shortterm autocorrelation, we use a demeaned data segment^{32} within a 30minlong sliding time window with a highest possible increment step of 10 s (i.e. leading to an overlap of almost 99.5%); the maximum lag is limited to ±30 min. For a longterm autocorrelation (as a way to identify tidal signal), we filter out periods shorter than 100 min and use a window 48 h long with a 10 min increment (99.6% overlap); the maximum lag is limited to ±48 h.
Continuous Wavelet Transform
The continuous wavelet transform (CWT) of timeseries data allows analysis of temporal changes in the frequency content with higher resolution compared with the Fourier transform. The CWT of a timeseries, x(t), is defined as^{46}
where u is displacement, s is scale, Ψ is the mother wavelet used, and ^{*} corresponds to a complex conjugate. Following^{46,47}, here, the timeseries is convoluted with a scaled complex Morlet wavelet, which is given by
where f_{c} is the wavelet centre frequency, and f_{b} is controlling the wavelet bandwidth. To compare the continuous wavelet transform of the ocean tide amplitude, T, or its derivative (CWT_{T} or CWT_{dT/dt}) with our timeseries (CWT_{i}), we first resample and interpolate the tidal data (5 min sampling rate) to a common time frame with the rest of the data, and then multiply an amplitude of the complex crosswavelet transform (CWT_{T,i} = CWT_{T} × CWT\({\,}_{i}^{* }\)) by a function of a local phase given by
where the cos(. . . ) part measures phase correlation between two inputs and represents the wavelet semblance, and D represents a dot product denoising the latter^{46}. Through this nonorthogonal wavelet analysis, we find that the tidal signal in the ‘deep’ data correlates with the rate of waterlevel change (dT/dt), whereas that of the ‘shallow’ data correlates directly with the tidal amplitude (Fig. 5).
Inversion of current velocity
Variation in pressure (Fig. 3d) and inclination of the cable outward from the ice cliff observed from a helicopter (17:56, 17 July; Fig. 7) indicate a pendulumlike swing of the deep sensor on a line of a fixed length, L, due to the strong outward push of the plume. This configuration is similar to a reverse problem of current drag and tilt of buoyant oceanographic moorings^{48}. To estimate the horizontal current speed needed to produce the observed pressure variation, P(t), we make the following assumptions.
First, we neglect any drag on the thin line as a secondary effect and focus on the drag force, D_{f}, on a ballast at the end of the line, given as^{48}:
where ρ_{w} is the average density of water (1,027.3 kg m^{−3}), C_{D} is the drag coefficient, A is the frontal area of the body, and v is the velocity of the current flow, which we want to calculate.
Second, we assume that to sustain a certain angle, α, the weight has to be pushed against the gravitational pull. The angle is
where I_{c} is the icecliff height (30 m), and the length of L = [max(P(t)) + I_{c}] (corresponding to the deepest and ‘quietest’ conditions on 15 July).
The effective gravity underwater is
where ρ_{r} is the density or rocks (2,700 kg m^{−3}), and g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m s^{−2}).
For a certain instantaneous α(t_{i}), the equivalence of the tangential force components of current push, F_{ct}, and gravity pull, F_{gt}, implies that the horizontal pushing force, F_{c}, is
Equating F_{c} and D_{f} yields
To address poorly constrained parameters (m, C_{d}, A), we compute histograms of v_{x} (292 bins) for an ensemble of 224 parameter combinations, where m ∈ [4, 10] kg, C_{d} ∈ [0.5, 1.2]ref. ^{48} and A ∈ [0.0157, 0.0289] m^{2} and [0.0595, 0.0893] m^{2} (the former area is consistent with the crosssection of a sphere of a given mass, whereas the latter is the increased area approximately corresponding to the folded bag used for rocks).
Embedded state–space trajectory
A power spectrum is insufficient either for describing the complexity of nonlinear time series, as two signals with identical spectra may have drastically different dynamics^{49}; or for detecting the presence of attractors^{50}. To overcome this, socalled ‘timedelay embedding’ was proposed for state–space reconstruction of nonlinear dynamical systems using one observable^{50}. Mathematically, this revolutionary nonlineartimeseries analysis approach is a diffeomorphism, based on a system of delay coordinates, which allows unfolding (or reconstructing) the attractor that is topologically similar to the true attractor of the original dynamical system^{50}.
To properly reconstruct the attractor from a scalar time series, it is necessary to choose two key parameters, namely, the time delay, τ, and the embedding dimension, m_{e}. Currently, the optimal determination of these two parameters remains mathematically nonrigorous^{49}. The principal requirement is to choose such a time delay that the consecutive coordinate is independent. In linear series, such delay corresponds to the decorrelation time (i.e. the first drop of the autocorrelation function either below e^{−1} or zero), whereas in nonlinear analysis it is common to rely on the selfmutual information criterion I(T), which corresponds to the amount of information we learn about x_{n} by measuring x_{n+T}^{49,51}.
The embedding dimension is typically determined by false nearest neighbour (FNN) analysis. This technique differentiates between genuine and ‘false’ neighbours, where genuine neighbours remain close in the higherdimensional embedding (R^{m+1}), and the proportion of false neighbours (which could be geometrically close simply because of insufficient unfolding in R^{m}) goes to zero. In practice, m_{e} is the smallest value at which the fraction of FNN(m) lies below some small arbitrary threshold (or zero) and is typically fixed as 3 or 4^{49,51}.
I(T) can be sensitive to histogram binning (b) while estimating a probability distribution, whereas FNN(m) is a function of the chosen τ and varies with the socalled ratio factor (R), which depends on the spatial distribution of the embedded points^{51}. Following sensitivity tests, we found that b was of little importance to the shape of the I(T) curve; b was fixed to \(2{N}^{\frac{1}{3}}\), where N is the number of points, and R was set to 20, as commonly used^{51}.
Both I(T) and FNN(m) were computed for 12hlong segments of all data and are shown in Supplementary Fig. 5. The results suggest that for most of the data, τ plateaus above ~5 min for most observables, for which the data are appropriately ‘unfolded’ at m_{e} = 3 − 4. Deep salinity shows the lowest selfmutual information, which flattens above ~ 2 min (Supplementary Fig. 5); similarly, it has the shortest decorrelation time (Fig. 10; in particular, deepsensor salinity fluctuations are the fastest process, and occasionally have a nearzero integral timescale). We suggest that the presence of the aforementioned noise in the deep salinity data leads to deviations in both I(T) and FNN(m). Nevertheless, sensitivity embedding tests with the lower embedding dimension of 2 and shorter/longer delays (~2–16 min) yielded topologically equivalent results. The smaller dimension implies that instead of the attractor, the reconstruction represents its projection. Therefore, for the sake of simplicity and consistency, here we present 2D embedding with τ = 5 min (Fig. 8). Animated results giving intuitive understanding of the system state dynamics are provided in Supplementary Movies 5–9. To fully reveal the temporal evolution and state–space architecture of the system, we plot the 2D embedded timeseries (Fig. 8fj) as a function of time (Zaxis) and the corresponding temperature (by colour).
Spectral analysis
In general, turbulent structure and statistics are inferred from Reynolds decomposition of the velocity signal^{52}. Such data can be used either for estimating turbulent kinetic energy dissipation rates from power spectra (i.e. among the most needed for plume models;^{2}), or for finding the characteristic size of the largest energyinjecting eddies from autocorrelation^{36}. In our logistically challenging case, velocity could not be measured directly. As an alternative to in situ measurements of the turbulent velocity field^{[e.g.39,52}, quite commonly in experimental studies, microscopic tracer particles or hydrogen bubbles are added for analysis of turbulent flow via particle image or laser doppler velocimetry^{36,53}. Acoustic scattering techniques quantify turbulent ocean environment in which either biological or physical sources of scattering are present^{54}. Other passive and active tracers carried by the flow, such as temperature and salt, can be used as a proxy for turbulence. This has been recognised by theoretical work showing that tracer variance has spectra similar to that of the flow^{36,55,56,57}. Tracer variance has been successfully applied in oceanographic studies, including an investigation that found that salinity variance may sufficiently characterise turbulent fluctuations for cases where salinity dominates density, as in our case^{39}.
Therefore, we compute the onesided power spectral density (PSD) of the timeseries that were bandpassfiltered between 12 hours and 20 s (Nyquist frequency) using fast Fourier transform and 2hlong sliding time windows overlapping by 50%. Spectra were smoothed with a coefficient of 10 after^{58}. For separating the possible influence of temperaturesensor inertia on salinity, in spectral analysis we also consider conductivity separately.
Data availability
All oceanographic, meteorological, and lakepressure measurements are provided with the paper (Supplementary Data 1, Supplementary Movies 2, 5–9); these data are also publicly available at https://zenodo.org/record/4552842^{59}. Freely available SENTINEL2A satellite imagery was downloaded from https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/. Thule tide data are publicly available through the Global Sea Level Observing System network (http://www.iocsealevelmonitoring.org/map.php). Seismic and timelapse data for the lake are publicly available through the Arctic Data archive System website (https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/dataset/A20200108005). Meteorological data are also described and partly available at https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/dataset/A20181016004. Other timelapse and UAV imagery is presented in figures and Supplementary Movies 1, 3, and 4. All Supplementary Movies of the paper (1–9) are also provided in high resolution at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.4552847^{60}.
Code availability
The studysite map was generated in an opensource QGIS, ver. 2.18.27 (Fig. 1b). The structurefrommotion model (Fig. 1c) was derived from a helicopter flyby on 17 July 2017 and built with ‘Agisoft PhotoScan’. Other plots and movies were generated by Matlab 2018b (https://mathworks.com/products/matlab.html) and opensource Matplotlib and ObsPy Python libraries^{61,62}. The Matlab codes used for our analysis were based on standard Matlab functions and benefited from the freely available GibbsSeaWater (GSW) Oceanographic Toolbox, Version 3.0.11^{63}, and wavelet and timeembeddingrelated scripts by^{46} and^{64}, respectively: http://www.teos10.org/software.htm, https://github.com/Sable/mcbenchbenchmarks/blob/master/18409comparingtimeseriesusingsemblanceanalysis/semblance.m, https://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/58246toolboxofrecurrenceplotandrecurrencequantificationanalysis
References
 1.
Morton, B. R., Taylor, G. I. & Turner, J. S. Turbulent gravitational convection from maintained and instantaneous sources. Proc. R. Soc. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 234, 1–23 (1956).
 2.
Carroll, D. et al. Modeling turbulent subglacial meltwater plumes: implications for fjordscale buoyancydriven circulation. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 45, 2169–2185 (2015).
 3.
Carroll, D. The impact of glacier geometry on meltwater plume structure and submarine melt in Greenland fjords. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 9739–9748 (2016).
 4.
De Andrés, E. et al. Surface emergence of glacial plumes determined by fjord stratification. The Cryosphere 14, 1951–1969 (2020).
 5.
Slater, D. et al. Localized plumes drive frontwide ocean melting of a Greenlandic tidewater glacier. Geophys. Res. Lett. 45, 12350–12358 (2018).
 6.
Carroll, D. et al. Subglacial dischargedriven renewal of tidewater glacier fjords. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 122, 6611–6629 (2017).
 7.
Fried, M. J. et al. Distributed subglacial discharge drives significant submarine melt at a Greenland tidewater glacier. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 9328–9336 (2015).
 8.
Sutherland, D. et al. Direct observations of submarine melt and subsurface geometry at a tidewater glacier. Science 365, 369–374 (2019).
 9.
Kanna, N. et al. Upwelling of macronutrients and dissolved inorganic carbon by a subglacial freshwater driven plume in Bowdoin Fjord, Northwestern Greenland. J. Geophys. Res. Biogeo. 123, 1666–1682 (2018).
 10.
Urbanski, J. A. et al. Subglacial discharges create fluctuating foraging hotspots for sea birds in tidewater glacier bays. Sci. Rep. 7, 43999 (2017).
 11.
Nishizawa, B. et al. Contrasting assemblages of seabirds in the subglacial meltwater plume and oceanic water of Bowdoin Fjord, northwestern Greenland. ICES J. Marine Sci. 77, 711–720 (2019).
 12.
Lydersen, C. et al. The importance of tidewater glaciers for marine mammals and seabirds in Svalbard, Norway. J. Marine Syst. 129, 452–471 (2014).
 13.
Kjeldsen, K. K. et al. Icedammed lake drainage cools and raises surface salinities in a tidewater outlet glacier fjord, west Greenland. J. Geophys. Res. Earth Surf. 119, 1310–1321 (2014).
 14.
Everett, A. et al. Subglacial discharge plume behaviour revealed by CTDinstrumented ringed seals. Sci. Rep. 8, 13467 (2018).
 15.
Podolskiy, E. A. & Sugiyama, S. Soundscape of a narwhal summering ground in a glacier fjord (Inglefield Bredning, Greenland). J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 125, e2020JC016116 (2020).
 16.
Mankoff, K. D. et al. Structure and dynamics of a subglacial discharge plume in a greenlandic fjord. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 121, 8670–8688 (2016).
 17.
Jackson, R. H. et al. Nearglacier surveying of a subglacial discharge plume: implications for plume parameterizations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 6886–6894 (2017).
 18.
Jouvet, G. et al. Shortlived ice speedup and plume water flow captured by a VTOL UAV give insights into subglacial hydrological system of Bowdoin Glacier. Remote Sens. Environ. 217, 389–399 (2018).
 19.
Bendtsen, J., Mortensen, J., Lennert, K. & Rysgaard, S. Heat sources for glacial ice melt in a west Greenland tidewater outlet glacier fjord: The role of subglacial freshwater discharge. Geophys. Res. Lett. 42, 4089–4095 (2015).
 20.
Mortersen, J. et al. Subglacial discharge and its downfjord transformation in West Greenland fjords with an ice mèlange. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 125, e2020JC016301 (2020).
 21.
Sugiyama, S., Sakakibara, D., Tsutaki, S., Maruyama, M. & Sawagaki, T. Glacier dynamics near the calving front of Bowdoin Glacier, northwestern Greenland. J. Glaciol. 61, 223–232 (2015).
 22.
Podolskiy, E. A. et al. Tidemodulated ice flow variations drive seismicity near the calving front of Bowdoin Glacier, Greenland. Geophys. Res. Lett. 43, 2036–2044 (2016).
 23.
McConnochie, C. D., Cenedese, C. & McElwaine, J. N. Surface expression of a wall fountain: application to subglacial discharge plumes. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 50, 1245–1263 (2020).
 24.
Ohashi, Y. et al. Vertical distribution of water mass properties under the influence of subglacial discharge in Bowdoin Fjord, northwestern Greenland. Ocean Sci. 16, 545–564 (2020).
 25.
Minowa, M., Podolskiy, E. A. & Sugiyama, S. Tidemodulated ice motion and seismicity of a floating glacier tongue in East Antarctica. Ann. Glaciol. 60, 57–67 (2019).
 26.
van Dongen, E. C. H. et al. Thinning leads to calvingstyle changes at Bowdoin Glacier, Greenland. The Cryosphere 15, 485–500 (2021).
 27.
Richter, O., Gwyther, D. E., King, M. A. & GaltonFenzi, B. K. Tidal modulation of Antarctic ice shelf melting. The Cryosphere Discuss., tc2020169 (2020).
 28.
CushmanRoisin, B. Introduction to Geophysical Fluid Dynamics. Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1994.
 29.
Kolmogorov, A. N. Local structure of turbulence in incompressible viscous fluid of very large Reynolds number. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 30, 299–301 (1941).
 30.
Alexakis, A. & Biferale, L. Cascades and transitions in turbulent flows. Phys. Rep. 767–769, 1–101 (2018).
 31.
Taylor, G. I. The spectrum of turbulence. P. Roy. Soc. A  Math. Phy. 164, 476–490 (1938).
 32.
McCaffrey, K. Characterizing ocean turbulence from Argo, acoustic doppler, and simulation data. Ph.D. thesis, U. Colorado Boulder, CO, USA (2014).
 33.
Turner, J. S. Turbulent entrainment: the development of the entrainment assumption, and its application to geophysical flows. J. Fluid Mech. 173, 431–471 (1986).
 34.
Franca, M. & Brocchini, M. Turbulence in rivers, in: P. Rowinǹski, A. RadeckiPawlik (Eds.), Rivers – Physical, Fluvial and Environmental Processes, Springer, Cham, Ch. 2, 5178 (2015).
 35.
Michalec, F.G. et al. Zooplankton can actively adjust their motility to turbulent flow. PNAS 114, E11199–E11207 (2017).
 36.
Liao, Q. & Cowen, E. A. The information content of a scalar plume – a plume tracing perspective. Environ. Fluid Mech. 2, 9–34 (2002).
 37.
Beckmann, J. et al. Modeling the response of Greenland outlet glaciers to global warming using a coupled flow line–plume model. The Cryosphere 13, 2281–2301 (2019).
 38.
Nash, J. D. & Moum, J. N. Microstructure estimates of turbulent salinity flux and the dissipation spectrum of salinity. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 32, 2312–2333 (2002).
 39.
Holleman, R. C., Geyer, W. R. & Ralston, D. K. Stratified turbulence and mixing efficiency in a salt wedge estuary. J. Phys. Oceanogr. 46, 1769–1783 (2016).
 40.
Kanna, N., Sugiyama, S., Fukamachi, Y., Nomura, D. & Nishioka, J. Iron supply by subglacial discharge into a fjord near the front of a marineterminating glacier in northwestern Greenland. Global Biogeochem. Cycles 34, e2020GB006567 (2020).
 41.
Minowa, M. et al. Calving flux estimation from tsunami waves. Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 515, 283–290 (2019).
 42.
IOC, SCOR, IAPSO. The International thermodynamic equation of seawater, 2010: calculation and use of thermodynamic properties, Intergov. Oceanogr. Comm., Manuals and Guides No. 56, UNESCO (2010).
 43.
Millero, F. J. & Poisson, A. International oneatmosphere equation of state of seawater. DeepSea Res. Pt. I 28, 625–629 (1981).
 44.
Monahan, A. H. The temporal autocorrelation structure of sea surface winds. J. Clim. 25, 6684–6700 (2012).
 45.
O’Neill, P. L., Nicolaides, D., Honnery, D. & Soria, J. Autocorrelation functions and the determination of integral length with reference to experimental and numerical data. 15th Australasian Fluid Mech. Conf., 14 (2004).
 46.
Cooper, G. & Cowan, D. Comparing time series using waveletbased semblance analysis. Comput. Geosci. 34, 95–102 (2008).
 47.
Torrence, C. & Compo, G. P. A practical guide to wavelet analysis. BAMS 79, 61–78 (1998).
 48.
Hurley, J., de Young, B. & Williams, C. D. Reducing drag and oscillation of spheres used for buoyancy in oceanographic moorings. J. Atmos. Ocean. Tech. 25, 1823–1833 (2008).
 49.
Goswami, B. A brief introduction to nonlinear time series analysis and recurrence plots. Vibration 2, 332–368 (2019).
 50.
Takens, F. Detecting strange attractors in turbulence. In Dynamical Systems and Turbulence, Warwick 1980. Lecture Notes in Mathematics (eds Rand, D. & L. Young) Vol. 898, 366381 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1981).
 51.
Small, M. Time series embedding and reconstruction. In Applied Nonlinear Time Series Analysis: Applications in Physics, Physiology and Finance (ed Small, M.), 146 (World Scientific, 2005).
 52.
McPhee, M. G. & Stanton, T. P. Turbulence in the statically unstable oceanic boundary layer under Arctic leads. J. Geophys. Res. Oceans 101, 6409–6428 (1996).
 53.
Cerbus, R. T. & Goldburg, W. I. Information content of turbulence. Phys. Rev. E 88, 053012 (2013).
 54.
Lavery, A. C., Geyer, W. R. & Scully, M. E. Broadband acoustic quantification of stratified turbulence. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 134, 40–54 (2013).
 55.
Obukhov, A. M. The structure of the temperature field in a turbulent flow. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR, Ser. Geogr. i Geofiz. 13, 58–69 (1949).
 56.
Corrsin, S. On the spectrum of isotropic temperature fluctuations in an isotropic turbulence. J. Appl. Phys. 22, 469–473 (1951).
 57.
Smith, K. S. et al. Turbulent diffusion in the geostrophic inverse cascade. J. Fluid Mech. 469, 13–48 (2002).
 58.
Konno, K. & Ohmachi, T. Groundmotion characteristics estimated from spectral ratio between horizontal and vertical components of microtremor. Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 88, 228–241 (1998).
 59.
Podolskiy, E. A., Kanna, N. & Sugiyama, S. Observations of a subglacial discharge plume, Bowdoin Glacier, Northwest Greenland, July 2017. Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.4552842 (2021).
 60.
Podolskiy, E. A., Kanna, N. & Sugiyama, S. Animated observations of a subglacial discharge plume, Bowdoin Glacier, Northwest Greenland, July 2017. Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.4552847 (2021).
 61.
Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. Eng. 9, 90–95 (2007).
 62.
Krischer, L. et al. ObsPy: a bridge for seismology into the scientific Python ecosystem. Comput. Sci. Discov. 8, 014003 (2015).
 63.
McDougall, T. & Barker, P. Getting started with TEOS10 and the Gibbs seawater (GSW) oceanographic toolbox. SCOR/IAPSO WG127, ISBN 9780646556215, 28 pp (2011).
 64.
Yang, H. Multiscale recurrence quantification analysis of spatial vectorcardiogram (VCG) signals. IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng. 58, 339–347 (2011).
Acknowledgements
We thank A. Walter, M. Kneib, and M. Funk for UAV safety support during the deployment at the calving front and E. van Dongen for processing the acquired orthoimages (Figs. 1f–h). We also thank M. Funk (for Sentinel Nunatak timelapse imagery), D. Sakakibara, S. Fukumoto, L.E. Preiswerk, and T. Oshima (for field support), ‘Air Greenland’ helicopter pilots (for logistical support on the glacier), D. Sakakibara and S. Tsutaki (for collecting and providing us with meteorological observations in Qaanaaq), S. Valade and P.M. Lefeuvre (for help and advice in image processing). This work and the salary of N.K. were supported by Arctic Challenge for Sustainability research projects (ArCS and ArCS II; JPMXD1300000000 and JPMXD1420318865, respectively) funded by the Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology of Japan (MEXT), JARC Net, and a GrantsinAid for Scientific Research "KAKENHI" No. 18K18175 (to E.A.P.).
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
N.K. and S.S. conceived and designed the plume measurement setup. N.K., S.S., and E.A.P. conducted the field work in Greenland. E.A.P. performed the analysis, prepared the figures and movies, and wrote the manuscript. E.A.P., N.K., and S.S. discussed the results and contributed to the writing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Peer review information Primary handling editor: Heike Langenberg.
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Podolskiy, E.A., Kanna, N. & Sugiyama, S. Coseismic eruption and intermittent turbulence of a subglacial discharge plume revealed by continuous subsurface observations in Greenland. Commun Earth Environ 2, 66 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247021001328
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

OceanBottom Seismology of Glacial Earthquakes: The Concept, Lessons Learned, and Mind the Sediments
Seismological Research Letters (2021)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.