
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.”
===============================================================
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 sourceDiscover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
‘The melt in some key areas is sped up between 2006 and 2010, when the study ended,” he said.
OK, they show melting so they must be “key areas” , right? Did they also smell of cherries by any chance?
Are we to believe that the end of the study means this is best, most representative period to talk about? Of course not. But if it smells of cherries , it must be sweet.
”So it shows that sea level rise can be expected to change quite sharply [b]IF[/b] the melt rate continues to increase, on top of what’s already happening.”
In view of the oscillatory nature of the changes, is there anything remotely scientific or believable about the big IF ? Not at all. And any scientist who has that kind of mileage knows it damn well.
Ok so they got their grants for next year and the beer money and , hell, a nice little overseas contract in Tassie. Lovely place.
An’ who cares if they have to misrepresent the truth a bit , it’s to help save the planet after all.
I look forward to their millimeter perfect maps of snow, ice, underlying crust and mantle.
Jay Zwally of NASA GSFC found that Antarctica gained terrestrial ice by about 49 km^3/year from 2003 to 2008. Dr Zwally is not a sceptic having predicted a nearly ice free Arctic this year.
So translating from climateer-speak: “Antarctica overall contributing much less to the substantial sea-level rise than originally thought” means “its actually contributing a sea level fall but we’re too embarassed to say this”.
What do we know about the density of the mantel, and disparate heat flow within the mantle which it appears could also affect grace?
The newest IceSat recalibrated measurements for Antarctica are a net mass increase (new corrections from the large network of GPS monitoring stations now in place indicating a certain rate of uplift left-over from the last ice age versus the previous estimates).
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/10/icesat-data-shows-mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/
Grace has now has been corrected for the same effect and it now has a much lower mass loss than previously estimated while Icesat has a positive mass increase. (a different related study linked below).
http://www.the-cryosphere-discuss.net/6/3703/2012/tcd-6-3703-2012.pdf
No net loss in Antarctica would be the conclusion averaging all three estimates. They haven’t fully corrected the Greenland numbers yet but it does mean that the sea level increases must be far off the mark now.
And we know they have been adjusting the sea level numbers based on what was assumed from ice-sheet loss from Antarctica and Greenland.
Tangled web was previously weaved and now everything will have to be rewritten.
Bill Illis says:
October 22, 2012 at 5:43 pm
[in part]
“And we know they have been adjusting the sea level numbers based on what was assumed from ice-sheet loss from Antarctica and Greenland.”
I’ve been reading WUWT for quite some time now and I don’t recall running across that information in the sea level discussions. Just more of the same ol’ same ol’ “adjustments” it seems.
Thanks for that tidbit.
P. Solar says:
October 22, 2012 at 1:10 pm
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
While the Antarctic sea ice maximum gets the attention, the Antarctic sea ice minimum has been increasing more, especially in years when Arctic sea ice hit record minimums
Decreased cloud cover is the common cause, because of much higher levels of black carbon in the Arctic.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice_south.php
Bill Illis,
Once again, thanks sincerely for your contributions here.
You are for sure one of the most sensible contributors gracing WUWT.
Confidence is far more important than skill in the gruelling field of climate-catasprophe.
“Brian R says:
October 22, 2012 at 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”
It doesn’t sound to me like you got it straight, because the article never said the current ice loss is the greatest in centuries and I’m not being sarcastic. The article mentioned sea level change being more than they’ve seen in centuries.
How much does silt runoff into the oceans effect the sea level? For that matter aquifer drainage and other assorted sources of water. We are always being hit by GCRs which are supposed to make more cloud cover and precipitation.
“The phenomenon in the Antarctic is not inconsistent with global warming, said McBean. “It was expected . . . it’s a complex situation.”
—————-
Is it just me, or have others noticed that these various ‘as expected’ occurrences are never predicted publicly before they occur?
So, the Antarctic ice has been steadily increasing for at least three decades, yet it’s still contributing to allegedly rapid sea-level increase. How does that work, then? Where’s all the extra water coming from?
Philip Bradley says:
>>
While the Antarctic sea ice maximum gets the attention, the Antarctic sea ice minimum has been increasing more, especially in years when Arctic sea ice hit record minimums
>>
Indeed the obsession with either extreme, plucking one day out of the year is a very poor and unscientific way of assessing what is happening. That is why I used a gaussian filter that takes data from 6 weeks either side to calculate the dates of min and max when assessing the length of melting periods posted above.
Also my plots of ice area/extent use 365(6) days per year of data, not one.
http://i47.tinypic.com/72zrio.png
There has been a steady underlying increase Antarctic sea ice area since 1985 that does not get much press. Another interesting feature is that since the big slide in Arctic ice cover ended in 2007 the short term variations seem to be in phase at the two poles in net contrast to the earlier oscillations that were out of phase.
As I’ve discussed in other threads, the Arctic melting seems to be an adjustment to the warmer AMO Altantic SST . Since AMO reached the peak of its 60y pseudo cycle the accelerating melting ended.
It seems all of this is irrelevant to some who won’t be happy until glaciers stop sliding down hill.
Oops, missed off the second graph:
http://i46.tinypic.com/r7uets.png
Bill Innis says: “And we know they have been adjusting the sea level numbers based on what was assumed from ice-sheet loss from Antarctica and Greenland.
Tangled web was previously weaved and now everything will have to be rewritten.”
Yes, what Colorado U. call Mean Sea Level has little to do with level of the sea any more. It is some kind of “estimated global warming from sea level index”. If they want to do that, they should clearly label it as such and not misrepresent it as “mean sea level”. It is not.
One of the main reasons people are concerned with sea level is that they may get wet. This fictitious sea level misrepresents that risk and should be labelled for what it is and the true sea level also made available in an equally visible and accessible way.
Unfortunately this is yet another valuable dataset that had been hijacked for political ends.
Previous ice loss was much, much higher than GCMs had expected. This sounds like it brings the observations closer to the models.
http://i46.tinypic.com/303ipeo.png
+
http://i49.tinypic.com/wwdwy8.png
=
http://i48.tinypic.com/2v14sc5.gif
(slow animation of preceding pair)
A 3-century-old modeling assumption – which is supported by not so much as a single observation – has been overthrown.
Amazing, isn’t it? I thought they had just got finished showing that global warming meant a colder antarctica and now these guys come along and say it’s warmer?
There is a relationship between global warming and water. If someone with lots of time on their hands did some calculations the polar melt is easy to explain. We are taking water out of the evaporation system at an ever increasing rate. Greenhouse gasses causing global warming is a big furfy. Global warming is being caused by water storage. We have bottled water, beer, soft drinks, soup, back yard tanks, underground pipes in every town and city. Humans have a fetish for storing liquid in a myriad of forms. The polar melt is the climate trying to replace the liquid we have taken out of the system and stored. Sea rise is the ocean expanding due to global temperature rise. The more the sea rises the larger the surface area available to evaporation. Evaporation is water molecules reaching boiling point. Lots of evaporation means lots of water molecules generating heat. The “natural steam” is what is warming the planet. Give the water back to the system and the warming reverses. Historically global warming episodes have resulted from water being locked out of the system except this time its man who has taken the water.
Here is the Envisat satellite sea level numbers before and after processing ( 0.5 mms/yr Raw versus 2.6 mms/year Processed) [note satellite communications were lost at the end of March 2012 so this chart is the latest processed estimates from the satellite’s operators ESA].
http://s17.postimage.org/94jqjrubz/Envisat_Corrections.jpg
Well how do you decide how much processing is required? There is satellite drift, and instrument corrections but there are also models of how much it is “supposed” to be.
It is supposed to be at least 2.5 mms/year based on 1.0 mm/year of thermosteric ocean heat content rise (which itself is a high number based on the newest OHC data but nonetheless) …
… and between 1.0 to 1.5 mms/year from Glacial Ice Melt. And the Glacial Ice Melt numbers are based on mass losses of -200 billion tons per year from Antarctica on the high side (which we now know is only +48 to -102 billion tons per year) and -200 billion tons per year from Greenland (so far uncorrected for the new GIA models).
http://s15.postimage.org/snr31hhln/Sea_Level_Contributions_Meyssignac2012.jpg
Antarctic contribution to sea level rise is 0.5 mms/year at a mass loss of -200 billion tons per year (now +48 to -103 billion tons).
http://s13.postimage.org/a5jipj9s7/Antarctic_Sea_Level_Contribution.png
I am a New Zealander working in Europe for the past 14 years, anyone who wants to comment on sea-level rise and has not flown or sailed from Europe to NZ is talking out of the wrong end !
“The rate of global sea level change is reasonably well-established …”
The operative word is “reasonably”.
“Global warming is being caused by water storage. We have bottled water, beer, soft drinks, soup, back yard tanks, underground pipes in every town and city. Humans have a fetish for storing liquid in a myriad of forms. The polar melt is the climate trying to replace the liquid we have taken out of the system and stored..”
Croovy69,
Are you sure you didn’t pinch that comment from the Onion?
These guys seem to need help drafting up their reports: I’ve summarized it for them:
1. Grace measuring gravity seemed like a good idea, and a great way to measure ice loss, but much to our surprise it turned out that we can’t tell the difference in ice going and rock moving in.
2. When we discovered that we modelled it again, but to make the numbers work we had to lower our estimates of how much ice the Antarctic is losing.
3. That leaves a problem because we can’t account for the sea level rise others have been claiming.
4. However, we must finish this statement by saying that we think the ice loss rate of Antarctica will speed up in the future, then we will say we knew it all along.
5. If point 4 does not work out, we will revert to point 2, and model it all again.