From University of Texas, Austin via Eurekalert
New ground measurements made by the West Antarctic GPS Network (WAGN) project, composed of researchers from The University of Texas at Austin, The Ohio State University, and The University of Memphis, suggest the rate of ice loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet has been slightly overestimated.

“Our work suggests that while West Antarctica is still losing significant amounts of ice, the loss appears to be slightly slower than some recent estimates,” said Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator for WAGN. “So the take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear.”
In 2006, another team of researchers used data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellites to infer a significant loss of ice mass over West Antarctica from 2002 to 2005. The GRACE satellites do not measure changes in ice loss directly but measure changes in gravity, which can be caused both by ice loss and vertical uplift of the bedrock underlying the ice.
Now, for the first time, researchers have directly measured the vertical motion of the bedrock at sites across West Antarctica using the Global Positioning System (GPS). The results should lead to more accurate estimates of ice mass loss.
Antarctica was once buried under a deeper and more extensive layer of ice during a period known as the Last Glacial Maximum. Starting about 20,000 years ago, the ice began slowly thinning and retreating. As the ice mass decreases, the bedrock immediately below the ice rises, an uplift known as postglacial rebound.
Postglacial rebound causes an increase in the gravitational attraction measured by the GRACE satellites and could explain their inferred measurements of recent, rapid ice loss in West Antarctica. The new GPS measurements show West Antarctica is rebounding more slowly than once thought. This means that the correction to the gravity signal from the rock contribution has been overestimated and the rate of ice loss is slower than previously interpreted.

“The published results are very important because they provide precise, ground-truth GPS observations of the actual rebound of the continent due to the loss of ice mass detected by the GRACE satellite gravity measurements over West Antarctica” said Vladimir Papitashvili, acting director for the Antarctic Earth Sciences Program at the National Science Foundation, which supported the research.
WAGN researchers do not yet know how large the overestimation was. A more definitive correction will be conducted by other researchers who specialize in interpreting GRACE data. Previous estimates of postglacial rebound were made with theoretical models. Assimilation of the direct GPS results into new models will therefore produce significant improvements in estimations of ice mass loss.
The results will appear in “Geodetic Measurements of Vertical Crustal Velocity in West Antarctica and the Implications for Ice Mass Balance” (M. Bevis et al., 2009), published in the electronic journal Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems of the American Geophysical Union and the American Geochemical Society. [View the paper at: http://www.agu.org/journals/gc/gc0910/2009GC002642/ ]
A team from The University of Texas at Austin’s Jackson School of Geosciences (Ian Dalziel, lead principal investigator), The Ohio State University’s School of Earth Sciences (Michael Bevis), and The University of Memphis’ Center for Earthquake Research and Information (Robert Smalley, Jr.) performed the WAGN project.
The network consists of 18 GPS stations installed on bedrock outcrops across West Antarctica. Precise, millimeter level, three-dimensional locations of the stations, which are bolted into the bedrock, were determined during measurements made from 2001 to 2003 and from 2004 to 2006, the two measurements being at least three years apart. The difference in the positions during the two time periods indicates the motion of the bedrock.
The WAGN data were supplemented with data from the first year of the Polar Earth Observing Network (POLENET) project, a project to establish a more sophisticated, continuously recording network of GPS and seismic stations, including the already established WAGN sites. POLENET will further improve our understanding of the interaction between the solid earth and ice sheets at both poles. The lead principal investigator of the U.S. Antarctic contribution to POLENET is Terry Wilson of The Ohio State University.
The West Antarctic GPS Network and the U.S. Antarctic contribution to the Polar Earth Observing Network of the International Polar Year were both funded and logistically supported by the Office of Polar Programs of the National Science Foundation.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There are a couple of interesting points. They say the west antarctic is not melting as fast as thought, but then add that there is a net loss of ice from the antarctic. I was under the impression that the antarctic is a net gainer of ice.
They also say that previous estimates of post glacial rebound came from models. It is at least refreshing that a long last science is being done with real data. Who knows, it might catch on!
“So the take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear.”
Isn’t there wayyyyy more new ice in the rest of Antarctica being made, easily dwarfing the small amount list in West Antarctica?
Postglacial rebound. That would tend to put huge cracks in the interface of continent shore to sea ice.
Starting about 20,000 years ago, the ice began slowly thinning and retreating.
Pesky cavemen and their darn SUV’s. These people need to be held responsible, for creating the horrible world we live in today. Morally they should be willing to sign a treaty that gives us all of their treasure, and everything else they hold dear as a start to paying us back for all the harm they have done.
Then perhaps they could fall on their stone spears so that their presence would not continue to pollute the planet. Of course an environmentally friendly method of disposing of their remains needs to be found. Justice requires that they let us tax them to fund this research.
However we find that the cavemen leadership who embrace hope and change and all things utopian need to be revered above all. At least until we, the peaceful protectors of the planet are strong enough to overcome the evil/revered cavemen, and then under the bus they go…
What about a simpler global measure. If there is more ice at the poles, it would seem the length of day would decrease and less ice at the poles, the length of day would increase. When I first started looking at AGW I ran across this several times but have not lately. It seems so simple. Am I missing something about distribution of mass around the globe?
“So the take home message is that Antarctica is contributing to rising sea levels. It is the rate that is unclear.” The article is reviewing an error in West Antarctica data, how did that become Antarctica?
One might think that a huge ice sheet as in Antarctica doesn’t respond much to shorter climatical change, such as a century of warning. Is it possible that the current ice loss still is a response to the end of the last ice age?
The network consists of 18 GPS stations installed on bedrock outcrops across West Antarctica. Precise, millimeter level, three-dimensional locations of the stations
Since when has GPS been able to measure anything down the the millimeter level? I have no doubt there is a post glacial rebound…I just question the accuracy of the measurements.
References please, is the Antarctic currently having anet gain or net loss of ice? If a net loss is this a continuation of the interglacial loss or something new and larger?
WAGN ? I think I would avoid accronyms with WAG in them. Although there are a number of networks like the GHCN in which WAG would be an appropriate one.
Brilliant. And here we have additional evidence that all is well and everything is to do with natural cycles. The evidence now emerging juxtaposed with the so- called consensus is becoming more and more compelling.
There is much more balanced science coming forward (from limited “accepted” sources) as the researchers feel less threatened and/or grow really large cajones.
It is not always/never easy to be in contention with the current political meme. (Theorists point out that memes which replicate the most effectively spread best, and some memes may replicate effectively even when they prove detrimental to the welfare of their hosts.)
Sort of sums it up for me.
GPS is accurate whitin 100 Meters. At least that is what they garanteed.
As an addendum to that last post I must add that we really don’t have a monkeys about what is actually happening. But catastrophic warming it ain’t so far.
Sean (10:07:54) : NO!!! If we look at all of the ice at once the warming signal would be lost. It only makes sense to focus on the areas where the ice is melting. This is what proves that the planet is warming. That way we can prove to the sheeple that disaster is immi.. ah emme… darn im… ahhhhh… that disaster is on the way and we can save them by destroying them. It’s so simple…
Carrier phase tracking yields accuracy to a few mm. The receivers that are capable of doing this are rather expensive (a $10K receiver is capable of a few cm accuracy, according to a colleague of mine), and probably only maintain that level of accuracy if whatever they are sitting on moves very, very slowly, e.g., plate tectonics.
The first time someone mentioned this (recently), I was similarly surprised so I did a little research and discovered it was indeed possible. Now I work for a GPS company, coincidentally enough, and will be required to really dig deep into the concepts used in navigation.
Mark
Wondering Aloud: They don’t have a clue mate.
If the ice in Antarctic and Arctic is in the water, (icebergs etc) if 7/8th is under water to start with – when it melts it wont make much difference to the water levels – will it? Would have thought that ice on land melting will be the problem with water levels?
Oh anyway people making statistics can make them say anything they want, they just baffle everyone with science to frighten us all. And frightened people obey orders. Too many politicians screaming about global warming, not enough scientists proving them wrong.
A healthy and colder antaractica would be producing more ice not less, like a an icecube making fridge device.
O/T, but obviously pretty important…
Gordon Brown says we have 50 days left to save the planet…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8313672.stm
JimB
This means that the correction to the gravity signal from the rock contribution has been overestimated and the rate of ice loss is slower than previously interpreted.
So, it’s global warming, let’s get our tickets to copenhagen!
Dare it be said: “It’s NOT worse than we thought”.
I hear they all work for GEICO now.
Sean (10:07:54) : What about a simpler global measure. If there is more ice at the poles, it would seem the length of day would decrease and less ice at the poles, the length of day would increase. When I first started looking at AGW I ran across this several times but have not lately. It seems so simple. Am I missing something about distribution of mass around the globe?
IIRC “Spin Orbit Coupling” causes the orbital mechanics of the earth to also cause subtile shifts in LOD. There was a paper (by an English speaker who I think is an Aussy, but to be published in Russian, since they have Scientists who actually read and do Science…) that linked LOD changes with PDO changes. Wilson? Time to go digging…
Ah, found it. We were talking about this kind of stuff here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/09/are-we-quaking/
And in comments the paper was discussed with a link to a slide show version of what was to be in it here:
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/solar-cycles/IanwilsonForum2008.pdf
Don’t know the eventual publishing fait, but I presume the ‘cute bits’ like the fuzzy baby chicken got removed…
h/t to Geoff Sharp at http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/ for his original pointer to the article in those comments.
So while it might be an interesting proxy for ice, it might be for reasons beyond most ken, and, well, proxies can be tricky things to domesticate…
As I understand it the UK and much of Europe is still undergoing rebound from the melting of ice from the last ice-age 10,000 years ago. I would imagine that something similar is happening in Antarctica and it would say nothing about current temperature or melting.
And of course rebound is not the only thing to change land surface levels. Seismic activity and Volcanicism with underground/underice magma movement must be happening in places given that Antarctica has its share of volcanoes.
But surely the loss or gain of ice from Antarctica is simply the balance betwen melting and precipitation. More precipitation means more ice to melt. Less precipitation means less. Current rates of ice melt at the edges might say more about what the weather was like a few centuries ago than anything more recent.
I see mention of ‘contributing to rising sea levels’. What rising sea levels? I see no evidence of it and I live in a coastal town. As I have posted before any rising or falling sea level surely has to relate to the total balance of water into the ocean. And a lot of rivers are now discharging a lot less water into the ocean because of human use. Somewhat more (if it is really happening) from the ice rivers around the planet might just be making up for (some of?) the loss.
Liz (10:51:34) : If the ice in Antarctic and Arctic is in the water, (icebergs etc) if 7/8th is under water to start with – when it melts it wont make much difference to the water levels – will it? Would have thought that ice on land melting will be the problem with water levels?
Exactly. Floating ice does not change the water level when it melts. Easy home experiment. Fill glass with ice. Add water to the brim (some ice will be above edge). Wait. As Ice melts, the water level stays constant.
For advanced study, fill glass with ice, fill to brim with gin. When the ice melts the level will be very slightly different. (Water and alcohol are different densities and the liquids merge a bit on melting). Then drink dilute gin. Repeat until you get the expermimimint chow prowdush za deesireed reshultsh.
Oh anyway people making statistics can make them say anything they want, they just baffle everyone with science to frighten us all.
This is just wrong. Only 79% of statisticians can abuse statistics in that way to a 95% confidence interval, the other 21% are still grad students or have a “morals problem” 😉