Researchers Provide Detailed Picture of Ice Loss Following Collapse of Antarctic Ice Shelves
An international team of researchers has combined data from multiple sources to provide the clearest account yet of how much glacial ice surges into the sea following the collapse of Antarctic ice shelves.
The work by researchers at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), the Laboratoire d’Etudes en Géophysique et Océanographie Spatiales, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique at the University of Toulouse, France, and the University of Colorado’s National Snow and Ice Data Center, Boulder, Colo., details recent ice losses while promising to sharpen future predictions of further ice loss and sea level rise likely to result from ongoing changes along the Antarctic Peninsula.
The Larsen B ice shelf began disintegrating around Jan. 31, 2002. Its eventual collapse into the Weddell Sea remains the largest in a series of Larsen ice shelf losses in recent decades, and a team of international scientists has now documented the continued glacier ice loss in the years following the dramatic event. NASA’s MODerate Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) captured this image on Feb. 17, 2002. (Credit: MODIS, NASA’s Earth Observatory) › Larger image
“Not only do you get an initial loss of glacial ice when adjacent ice shelves collapse, but you get continued ice losses for many years — even decades — to come,” says Christopher Shuman, a researcher at UMBC’s Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology (JCET) at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Shuman is lead author of the study published online July 25 in the Journal of Glaciology. “This further demonstrates how important ice shelves are to Antarctic glaciers.”
An ice shelf is a thick floating tongue of ice, fed by a tributary glacier, extending into the sea off a land mass. Previous research showed that the recent collapse of several ice shelves in Antarctica led to acceleration of the glaciers that feed into them. Combining satellite data from NASA and the French space agency CNES, along with measurements collected during aircraft missions similar to ongoing NASA IceBridge flights, Shuman, Etienne Berthier, of the University of Toulouse, and Ted Scambos, of the University of Colorado, produced detailed ice loss maps from 2001 to 2009 for the main tributary glaciers of the Larsen A and B ice shelves, which collapsed in 1995 and 2002, respectively.
The Landsat Image Mosaic of Antarctica (LIMA) provides this “flyover” view of the Larsen Ice Shelf’s long reach out into the Weddell Sea. (Credit: LIMA)
“The approach we took drew on the strengths of each data source to produce the most complete picture yet of how these glaciers are changing,” Berthier said, noting that the study relied on easy access to remote sensing information provided by NASA and CNES. The team used data from NASA sources including the MODerate Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) instruments and the Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat).
The analysis reveals rapid elevation decreases of more than 500 feet for some glaciers, and it puts the total ice loss from 2001 to 2006 squarely between the widely varying and less certain estimates produced using an approach that relies on assumptions about a glacier’s mass budget.
The authors’ analysis shows ice loss in the study area of at least 11.2 gigatons (11.2 billion tons) per year from 2001 to 2006. Their ongoing work shows ice loss from 2006 to 2010 was almost as large, averaging 10.2 gigatons (10.2 billion tons) per year.
An animation showing ice edge changes for the Larsen B ice shelf and its adjacent tributary glaciers can be viewed at http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/goto?3803.
Related Links
› Larsen B Ice Front Changes 2001-2009 (NASA SVS)
› Animation of Larsen B collapse (NASA Earth Observatory)
› Before and after Larsen A comparison (NASA SVS)
Goddard Release No. 11-046
=========================================================
UPDATE: The press liaison at NSDIC wrote to complain about the “worse than we thought” title.
Dear Mr. Watts,
We noted that you republished a NASA/NSIDC press release regarding a new Journal of Glaciology paper. In the headline of your post, the phrase “worse than we thought” is in quotation marks. This makes it appear as if it is a quote from the press release, and a statement by the researchers. We request that you remove the quotation marks so that it is clearer that this is your headline.
NASA and NSIDC scientists are always willing to grant interviews to journalists if you have questions about their research.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Katherine Leitzell Science Communications National Snow and Ice Data Center Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences 449 University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309
I replied:
Dear Ms. Leitzell
The “worse than we thought” is a cliché that reverberates through the climate science community and is well understood by my readers. It is a satirical statement, intending to convey the oft repeated science by press release position that climate change is an escalating series of alarming press releases, each worse that the other.
Quotation marks also serve to delineate a satirical statement, and is often visualized in person by the person taking two fingers (index and middle) and bending them. It has also been described as being a snowclone in the vein of.
X is “worse than we thought”.
Thus, since satire is protected by free speech, and this is a fair use application of a publicly funded study and press release, the headline stands. I will however make a footnote at the bottom of the story stating that NSIDC has complained, and the title are my satirical words. You should know that the press release is not being well received. http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2011/07/antarctic-ice-allegedly-declining-at.html
Thank you for your consideration.
Anthony Watts
Now it occurs to me that any protuding out far enough will break off eventually. What was expected? For it to just carry on growing indefinitely?
Just wait another 2 weeks we can really rub it in the AGW’s. Of course only trust Scandinavians when it comes to NH ice extent.
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
Looks like RC is putting its foot in mouth again LOL!
So Antarctica is melting????
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png
Pleeuuuuzzz!
Even pro AGW CT can’t hide it
FACT: The largest known ice island measured 31,000 km2 (335 km x 97 km) broke away from the Filchner Shelf in 1956 and was reported by the USS Glacier on November 12, 1956.
Larsen B-15 by comparison is 295 x 37 km.
EOM
As of today, 26 July, the area of Antractic Sea Ice is at its 1979 to 2000 average. If it’s losing it at the Larsen Ice Shelf then it must be gaining it elsewhere.
So, how much was the extent of the arctic ice in 1000AD?
If we don’t have an answer, then how do we know that the current state of affairs is not the natural astate of affairs?
GHG’s have nothing to do with it.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/henrys-pool-table-on-global-warming
Likely related to the nearby subduction zone.
But Global Warming is going to cause increased precipitation, which will cause the glaciers to flow faster, which will cause larger ice-shelves to build up and subsequently break off, which will raise the seas even more! I mean, everybody knows that the snow atop the glaciers isn’t from the ocean, right? The ocean isn’t made of snow!
This has been playing again on Cable (we’re doomed):
Last Days On Earth 10/12 History Channel (guess what is the #1 threat?)
So the ice loss has decreased by nearly 10 per cent in the period to 2010, compared with 2001 to 2006.
And that would be a problem how?
Accelerating Ice mass loss in both Antarctica and Greenland is undeniable. The only question is as to cause:
1) Natural cyclic behavior
2) Anthropogenic Warming
3) A combination of 1 & 2
Stark Dickflüssig says:
July 26, 2011 at 9:39 am
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Increased precipitation indeed. So now that we have cubits and cubits of water lying in farmers fields all over North America replenishing ground water for the first time in 5 years, how much are the oceans going to drop leaving ports unaccessible? /sarc off
IIRC, the amount of ice loss they are estimating currently is equivalent to less than 1% of normal summer ice loss every year…
11 billion tons sounds like alot but it is equal to 11 cubic kms of ice. The antarctic is coverd by 3 million cubic kms of ice. 11 kms is absolutly insignificant.
No matter how many gazzillion tons of ice has melted, the warmers always try to makee it sound so huge, but in reality the annual ice melt is nothing. It is so small, no wonder they have a hard time agreeing with the measurements.
Cheers.
Excuse me, I made an error. Antarctica is covered by 30 million cubic kms of ice, sorry about that. The 11 cubic kms of melted ice is ever more insignificant than I had realized.
Well, what made it get so dang big in the first place………duh
Stark Dickflüssig says:
July 26, 2011 at 9:39 am
But Global Warming is going to cause increased precipitation… The ocean isn’t made of snow!
=========================
Heh. Thanks, I needed that. 🙂
Accelerating Ice mass loss in both Antarctica and Greenland is undemonstrated. The only question is as to cause:
1) Natural cyclic[al] behavio[u]r
2) Our models suck but they’re still right
3) A combination of 1 & 2
4) A combination of 1, 3, & 4
5) A combination of 4 and 2
6) All of the above except 1
OK. So what is this?
Science 22 July 2011:
Vol. 333 no. 6041 p. 401
DOI: 10.1126/science.333.6041.401
Antarctic Ice’s Future Still Mired in Its Murky Past
Richard A. Kerr
Summary
“A new reanalysis by two NASA scientists of the three standard ice-monitoring techniques slashes the estimated loss from East Antarctica, challenging the large, headline-grabbing losses reported lately for the continent as a whole. Although not the final word, the new study shows that researchers still have a lot to learn about the vast East Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/333/6041/401.summary?ref=topst
R. Gates
Accelerating Ice mass loss in both Antarctica and Greenland is undeniable.
Really? That’s news to all of us. Where is your evidence?
R. Gates :
Greenland ice sheet is growing. https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/MattCronin-Mar21-07-d/Johannessenetal05-GreenlandIceFinal.pdf
Antarctic sea ice is growing: http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191
Two minute search on google….
Kisses….
Watching NASA’s animation of the “collapse of the Larsen-B ice shelf”, this looks like cherry-picking. All the ice in the Bay looks to my untrained eye to be normal pack ice which comes and goes seasonally during the period of the animation 2001-2009. However, in 2001 there was a bit more of the sea ice and in 2009 a bit less. And this is a very localised event, not representative of Antarctica as a whole.
By the way, R Gates – Accelerating Ice mass loss in both Antarctica and Greenland is undeniable.
Check the stats before hyperventilating too much: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_daily_extent_hires.png
So where are they rising sea levels, then?
My advanced Toothpaste Model of sea ice represents the land ice as an open-topped cylinder containing and accumulating slow-flowing cold ice, and the bottom flange as an extrusion outlet where warmer faster-flowing ice gets squoze out. The faster it’s coming out, the higher the level of the cylinder’s ice must be.
So more calving proves there’s more land ice.
Q.E.D.
🙂
Calving in the Antarctic…………. is news?
I mean we’ve had this ‘conversation’ before, the maritime influence! BUT, the freezing interior is getting colder… no weather stations and etc.
You know the type of stuff…….http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/17/the-antarctic-wilkins-ice-shelf-collapse-media-recycles-photos-and-storylines-from-previous-years/
Shock horror and guess who’s come to tea? – NSIDC….glory be!
I read some time ago that Larson B was a huge body of ice floating on water with a local anticyclone above it. I assume the air pressure was flexing this brittle material until it fractured and broke off. The removal of this ‘dam’ meant that glaciers would rapidly shed ice which was no longer blocked.
The ice shelf did not melt. It is not an unusual occurrence, in fact any large body of ice floating on water will eventually fracture without any ‘warming’.
Interesting, but no big story really.