Antarctic weight loss seems to be in the eye of the beholder

Antarctic profile hg
Antarctic profile hg (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

From Newcastle University

New understanding of Antarctic’s weight-loss

New data which more accurately measures the rate of ice-melt could help us better understand how Antarctica is changing in the light of global warming.

The rate of global sea level change is reasonably well-established but understanding the different sources of this rise is more challenging. Using re-calibrated scales that are able to ‘weigh’ ice sheets from space to a greater degree of accuracy than ever before, the international team led by Newcastle University, UK, has discovered that Antarctica overall is contributing much less to the substantial sea-level rise than originally thought.

Instead, the large amount of water flowing away from West Antarctica through ice-melt has been partly cancelled out by the volume of water falling onto the continent in the form of snow, suggesting some past studies have overestimated Antarctica’s contribution to fast-rising sea levels.

Using Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data, the team calculated ice sheet mass loss by more accurately mapping and removing the mass changes caused by the flow of rock beneath Earth’s surface.

Publishing their findings today in the academic journal Nature, project lead Professor Matt King said the data meant we were at last close to understanding how Antarctica is changing.

“We have tried to weigh the ice in the past but GRACE only measures the combined effect of the ice changes and the land mass changes occurring beneath the Earth’s surface,” explains Professor King, Professor of Polar Geodesy at Newcastle University. “The step forward we have made is to provide a better calculation of the land mass changes so we can correct the satellite measurements to more accurately calculate the changes in ice mass alone.

“Our ice change calculations rely heavily on how well we can account for these important changes taking place beneath the Earth’s surface. While the land beneath the ice is moving by no more than a few millimetres-per-year – the thickness of a fingernail –that seemingly small effect significantly alters the rate at which we estimate the ice is changing.

“By producing a new estimate of the land motion we’re effectively re-calibrating the scales – in this case the GRACE satellite –so we can more accurately weigh the ice. And what we’ve found is that present sea level rise is happening with apparently very little contribution from Antarctica as a whole.”

Because most of the Antarctic land surface is covered by ice it has been incredibly difficult to determine where it is rising and falling and by how much. That has meant GRACE data hasn’t been able to contribute as much as it could to help scientists understand if Antarctica was growing or shrinking.

“We’re now confident it is shrinking,” says Professor King, currently on secondment at the University of Tasmania, Australia. “Our new estimate of land motion helps us narrow the range and shifts the best estimate to the lower end of the ice melt spectrum.

“Worryingly, though, the rate of shrinking has sped up in some important locations. The parts of Antarctica that are losing mass most rapidly are seeing accelerated mass loss and this acceleration could continue well into the future.”

“The sea level change we’re seeing today is happening faster than it has for centuries with just a small contribution from the massive Antarctic ice sheet. What is sobering is that sea levels will rise even faster if Antarctica continues to lose increasingly more ice into the oceans.”

The research is part of a £600,000 project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) to investigate the changing mass of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.

Ice sitting on the Antarctic continent at the peak of the last ice age 20,000 years ago forced the rock beneath to deform and slowly flow away. After that time ice levels generally reduced and the rock within the Earth’s mantle more than 100km below the surface has been slowly flowing back in. That change affects the GRACE satellites in exactly the same way as ice moving into and out of the continent.

Since their launch in 2002, the GRACE satellites allow scientists to map Earth’s gravity field every 30 days, mapping changes as mass moves around the Earth’s surface as well as below it.

Newcastle University’s Dr Rory Bingham adds: “There are lots of measurements that tell us something about the recent state of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, but none of those measurements gives the complete picture.

“This research starts to pull that picture together, providing the most accurate GRACE estimate so far of Antarctica’s contribution to sea level as a whole, as well as identifying which regions are changing and which are not.

Professor Mike Bentley, of Durham University, UK, who was part of the project team said, “This project brought together a range of scientists including geologists, geodesists and computer modellers to work out the contribution of the Antarctic ice sheets to global sea level rise. We have shown that the Antarctic contribution is smaller than some previous estimates, but the ice sheet is changing very rapidly in some key regions”.

###

From The Age in Australia, it seems that there are some good points, namely about sea level rise:

=============================================================

Although parts of East Antarctica are growing, glaciers in West Antarctica are melting faster, leading to a net loss of ice across the continent, according to a study published in the journal Nature.

”We’re confident that the ice cover is shrinking, and the rate along the Amundsen Sea coast is accelerating,” said Professor Matt King, of the University of Tasmania.

One result of the findings is that melting ice in Antarctica is not contributing as much to a rise in global sea levels as some other studies have assumed.

‘The melt in some key areas is sped up between 2006 and 2010, when the study ended,” he said. ”So it shows that sea level rise can be expected to change quite sharply if the melt rate continues to increase, on top of what’s already happening.”

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/190m-tonnes-of-ice-a-day-has-sea-rising-1mm-a-year-20121022-2817w.html#ixzz2A3CZEDAa

===============================================================

Still, all this is hard to reconcile with the sea ice graph from Antarctica showign a growing trend over the period of the satellite record since 1979:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

59 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pat
October 22, 2012 12:20 pm

and now for some rationalisation:
22 Oct: Toronto Star: Raveena Aulakh: Antarctic sea ice is increasing — is global warming over?
Not at all, say climatologists.
The Antarctic is land covered with ice and surrounded by water; the Arctic is water surrounded by land. “That makes them hugely different and how climate change affects them is also different,” said Gordon McBean, director of research at the University of Western Ontario’s Centre for Environment and Sustainability.
“In the Antarctic, there is ice in the centre and as it meets with ocean, currents lift it a bit,” said McBean. “It can result in more sea ice.”…
Scientists say there is also the issue of depletion of ozone in the stratosphere in the Antarctic, which makes the stratosphere even colder, preventing ice from melting.
But McBean says while the Antarctic is still cooler than the rest of the world, it is also warming up. “Just not as quickly,” he said.
The phenomenon in the Antarctic is not inconsistent with global warming, said McBean. “It was expected . . . it’s a complex situation.”…
But the growing sea ice in the Antarctic will have not have an impact on sea level, said Jing Chen, professor with the department of geography at the University of Toronto…
“We should not be too complacent about the recent ice increase,” he said. “If (global) warming keeps increasing, it pushes average temperatures above freezing points and the Antarctic area ice will decrease and the trend will quickly reverse.”
Growing sea ice in the Antarctic is good news “but (we) have to take it in the right perspective: it will not increase forever.”
http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/1275441–antarctic-sea-ice-is-increasing-is-global-warming-over

Brian R
October 22, 2012 12:20 pm

So let me get this straight. The GRACE satellite has been in orbit since 2002. And through their “new and improved” guesses on what’s happening to the ground under the ice sheets, these scientist are able to state that the current ice loss is the greatest in centuries. All that from 10 years of data and new guess work.
I feel so much better now about the science. /sarc

RHS
October 22, 2012 12:43 pm

Remind me where the sea level rise is actually occurring? Satellite measurements show tapering off/slight decline…

jack mosevich
October 22, 2012 12:48 pm

Quote: …” Antarctica overall is contributing much less to the substantial sea-level rise than originally thought” Who says the sea level rise is substantial? At its present rate (3.1 mm/yr) sea level will rise by 8 inches in 100 years..not substantial in my opinion. These guys always have to put in some alarmist tripe

October 22, 2012 12:50 pm

Can someone please remind me how “substantial” the current rate of sea-level rise is? I thought I’d seen a figure of 3.5mm/yr? So that would be 350mm/century, which I understand is what happened in the 20th century and we seem to have survived.

Mark Nutley
October 22, 2012 12:54 pm

Erm, what “substantial sea-level rise” are they talking about?

marknutley
October 22, 2012 12:56 pm

Erm, what “substantial sea-level rise” are they talking about?

Jim Clarke
October 22, 2012 12:58 pm

“The rate of global sea level change is reasonably well-established…”
By whose standards?
From what I read, the rate of sea level change is largely the summation of several poorly educated guesses about the amount of crust rebound, ice melt and who knows what else.
Also…we have ice in plan sight, but the adjustment in this study was made on millimeter shifts in the Earth’s crust, for which we have no direct measurement. From that, they make assumptions about the ice, which we can directly measure, and find to be increasing overall.
Except in some areas, and those areas are worse than we expected, signalling the potential for a really rapid rise in sea level when CAGW really kicks in… which will be soon, although we haven’t really seen any evidence of it happening at all, so far.
So in summation…the news is better than we thought, but worse than we expected.
(If we paid them another 600,000 pounds, do you think they would make a little more sense?)

October 22, 2012 1:00 pm

[1] “Instead, the large amount of water flowing away from West Antarctica through ice-melt has been partly cancelled out by the volume of water falling onto the continent in the form of snow, ”
I thought Antarctica was supposed to be a desert? I assume that the amount of water flowing away is not insignificant which means that the amount falling on the continent is not insignificant. I think because the driest place on the planet is on Antarctica it suits certain narratives to make all of Antarctica a desert. The explanation given for why Antarctica’s Dry Valleys have seen no rain for 2 million years is because “The unique conditions in the Dry Valleys are caused, in part, by katabatic winds; these occur when cold, dense air is pulled downhill by the force of gravity. The winds can reach speeds of 320 kilometres per hour (200 mph), heating as they descend, and evaporating all water, ice and snow.”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMurdo_Dry_Valleys#cite_note-2
[2] “The sea level change we’re seeing today is happening faster than it has for centuries with just a small contribution from the massive Antarctic ice sheet. What is sobering is that sea levels will rise even faster if Antarctica continues to lose increasingly more ice into the oceans.”
There must be uncertainty in this assumption as increasing ice loss could be an indication of increasing precipitation and therefore increased weight of ice pushing down, just as increased rainfall means increased river flow. This could be an indication of increasing temperatures but I don’t know how that translates to an area that experiences temperatures tens of degrees below freezing anyway, if for example it’s -19 instead of -20, or -88.2 instead of -89.2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowest_temperature_recorded_on_Earth)

rob r
October 22, 2012 1:01 pm

Hands up all those who suspect the changes in land-based Antarctic ice mass are purely natural and beyond human influence.

kbray in california
October 22, 2012 1:02 pm

I often see this gobble-de-gook catch 22 garbage:
——————————-
“The sea level change we’re seeing today is happening faster than it has for centuries with just a small contribution from the massive Antarctic ice sheet. What is sobering is that sea levels will rise even faster if Antarctica continues to lose increasingly more ice into the oceans.”
The research is part of a £600,000 project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) to investigate the changing mass of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.
——————————-
it’s fast, no it’s not, it’s small, maybe not, what if it gets bigger and faster, give me more money….
Cut off the funding.

P. Solar
October 22, 2012 1:10 pm

These so-called satellite measurements always have to be based on some fairly crude MODEL of how the underlying rock is moving. At least this article seems pretty honest about the problem. At the end of the day this comes down to guessing the “viscosity” of rock.
GRACE is pretty impressive. Guesses of viscosity less so. It seems the latest guess is an improvement on earlier guesses.
The recent change they have picked up may reflect the recent change in length of melting season. As I recently pointed out in discussions of Arctic melting we again see the polar see-saw in operation. Arctic has seen its melting season shorten , Antarctic lengthen.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2mdgitw.png
The big difference is that while Arctic has passed the bar of 6 months and now has freesing season longer than melting , Antarctic is still well below 6 months. This is coherent with the continued increase in ice extent down under.
My guess is that the next guess will find even less “apparent” ice loss.
Claims that sea levels are still rising depend on equally uncertain estimates of how much land is moving and how much GAIA adjustment can be added to the REAL sea level to account for deepening of the ocean basins.
Fortunately all this is unverifiable so they can make the guesses and models fit political needs of the day.

peter Miller
October 22, 2012 1:16 pm

Snow – who would have thought it. Apparently it weighs something.
This was so full of obligitory alarmist nonsense all leading down to the bottom line of: “gimme some more grant money” that I had difficulty in finishing it.

H.R.
October 22, 2012 1:27 pm

“Antarctic weight loss seems to be in the eye of the beholder”
“Does this glacier make me look fat?”
I’ve been puzzling over this. Are our measurements really that good yet? Early posts upthread have already pointed out many uncertainties. An error of a few cubic kilometers here and there and pretty soon you’re talking all educated WAGs.

kbray in california
October 22, 2012 1:40 pm

Perhaps this is yet another Global Warming Paradox:
Just like the warming causes warm snow,
accelerated melting might actually cause sea level drooping.
You just have to Believe in the new nonsense science.

wayne
October 22, 2012 1:43 pm

Sea level changing rapidly? I don’t buy it. What sea level change?
Take a look at this mean sea level mark carved in the stone on the `Isle of the Dead’ in Tasmania by Capt. Sir James Clark Ross in 1841. The tidal range there is but one meter and the photo is at low tide.
http://www.john-daly.com/photomrk.htm
http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm

Richdo
October 22, 2012 1:49 pm

a few millimetres-per-year – the thickness of a fingernail
I think there is medication available to treat this condition. /sarc
The average thickness of fingernails for males is 0.384 mm
and for females is 0.346 mm [by Testut quoted in ICRP 23, 1975]

http://health.phys.iit.edu/extended_archive/0003/msg00465.html

John West
October 22, 2012 1:54 pm

“The research is part of a £600,000 project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) to investigate the changing mass of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.”
I wonder what the report would have found if the research wass part of a £600,000 project funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) to investigate the unchanging mass of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.
You get what you pay for.

Billy Liar
October 22, 2012 1:56 pm

GRACE is rubbish.
It measures gravity pretty well but it has no idea what causes the local change in gravity. Hence the models. Technique:
1. Decide what you want the answer to be
2. Use model to separate the various possible causes of change in local gravity
3. Fudge Tune model to produce desired answer
Any questions?

October 22, 2012 1:57 pm

“…by no more than a few millimetres-per-year – the thickness of a fingernail…”
Which part of the Neanderthal Valley are these folks from?

davidmhoffer
October 22, 2012 2:03 pm

Gotta love it. Our models that predicted ice loss in the antarctic have turned out to be completely wrong, but if all the things that made them wrong change in some way to make them right again, it could be very very bad, so we were possibly right in the first place and it could be worse than we thought.
We also took several pictures of swimming polar bears and concluded that their noses are less than 8 inches above the sea surface, so if sea levels continue to rise, over the next 100 years all the polar bears will drown.

October 22, 2012 2:04 pm

This story reflects a serious problem regarding the use of GRACE data – but at least it finally honest about it. If you look at the amount of mass associated with ice from a GRACE measurement, you quickly realize people are jumping massive chasms of ignorance to reach their conclusions. GRACE measure total gravity anomalies. That means it measures the total mass under the satellites at some grid size. The assumption exposed here is:
“We have tried to weigh the ice in the past but GRACE only measures the combined effect of the ice changes and the land mass changes occurring beneath the Earth’s surface,”
Now they like to claim this is only the crustal mass, because the assumption is only the crust mass changes over time. But this is a ridiculous rush to judgement. If the core, mantle, etc are semi-fluid and not 100% consistent composition (which is silly to assume), then changes in the density integrated from the center out to the crust along the measured surface grid would dominate the changes seen in GRACE product. It is the ice that is a sliver of hair upon this mass of crust, molten rock and liquid iron. And there is NO WAY to tease that signal out of GRACE data knowing so little about the composition and dynamics of the interior of our planet.

Richdo
October 22, 2012 2:08 pm

“What is sobering is that sea levels will rise even faster if Antarctica continues to lose increasingly more ice into the oceans we’ve blown through almost all of the £600,000 and the last keg is almost empty.”
There, fixed that for ‘ya.

P. Solar
October 22, 2012 2:13 pm

“Still, all this is hard to reconcile with the sea ice graph from Antarctica showign a growing trend over the period of the satellite record since 1979:”
Well if you look at the rate of change of ice area there are positive and negative changes.
http://i48.tinypic.com/25z1aaf.png
This can be seen in the plot at the end of the article. There are many times when , short term, there’s a loss and even recently when the anomaly goes briefly negative.
So all you need to do , to keep in line with the politics, is focus on _some_ areas at some times and start to play the “if this continues… OMG” game in order to ensure you’re on side.
Of course looking at all the data is usually the best idea. The data in the last plot of the article is pretty clear once a little low pass filtering is applied.
http://i46.tinypic.com/dn1q43.png
Volume is ultimately the what we need to be looking at not area which could be deceptive in either direction. However, last time I saw uncertainty figures it was like X billion cubic km -0/+100% , ie between something really big and… nothing at all.
All this work is valuable progress but it really is not ready to start making “if it continues” type projections.
Best stick with area observations for a while I think.

P. Solar
October 22, 2012 2:17 pm

Johanus says:
October 22, 2012 at 1:57 pm
“…by no more than a few millimetres-per-year – the thickness of a fingernail…”
Which part of the Neanderthal Valley are these folks from?
Brilliant. Had me chuckling that one. I thought the fingernail bit was pretty stupid but the Neanderthal bit is a blast.

1 2 3