'Game changer' – Antarctic melt due to warm water, not air temperature

From the University of California – Irvine  something that pretty well makes Steig et al 2009 even more irrelevant, since in that paper they did a survey of air temperatures and then smeared them around the continent using some Mannian style math, which was later shown to be faulty by O’Donnell et al.

Steig_antarctic_temp_trends_fig1UC Irvine found that ocean currents cause most of the observed melt, so air temperature really isn’t much of an issue.

Warm ocean drives most Antarctic ice shelf loss, UC Irvine and others show

Findings are a game changer for future forecasts about thawing continent

Irvine, Calif. – Ocean waters melting the undersides of Antarctic ice shelves, not icebergs calving into the sea, are responsible for most of the continent’s ice loss, a study by UC Irvine and others has found.

The first comprehensive survey of all Antarctic ice shelves discovered that basal melt, or ice dissolving from underneath, accounted for 55 percent of shelf loss from 2003 to 2008 – a rate much higher than previously thought. Ice shelves, floating extensions of glaciers, fringe 75 percent of the vast, frozen continent.

The findings, to be published in the June 14 issue of Science, will help scientists improve projections of how Antarctica, which holds about 60 percent of the planet’s freshwater locked in its massive ice sheet, will respond to a warming ocean and contribute to sea level rise.

It turns out that the tug of seawaters just above the freezing point matters more than the breaking off of bergs.

“We find that iceberg calving is not the dominant process of ice removal. In fact, ice shelves mostly melt from the bottom before they even form icebergs,” said lead author Eric Rignot, a UC Irvine professor who’s also a researcher with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena. “This has profound implications for our understanding of interactions between Antarctica and climate change. It basically puts the Southern Ocean up front as the most significant control on the evolution of the polar ice sheet.”

Ice shelves grow through a combination of land ice flowing to the sea and snow falling on their surfaces. The researchers combined a regional snow accumulation model and a new map of Antarctica’s bedrock with ice shelf thickness, elevation and velocity data captured by Operation IceBridge – an ongoing NASA aerial survey of Greenland and the South Pole. (Rignot will host a planning session of Operation IceBridge scientists at UC Irvine on June 17 and 18.)

Ocean melting is distributed unevenly around the continent. The three giant ice shelves of Ross, Filchner and Ronne, which make up two-thirds of Antarctica’s ice shelves, accounted for only 15 percent. Meanwhile, less than a dozen small ice shelves floating on relatively warm waters produced half the total meltwater during the same period.

The researchers also compared the rates at which the ice shelves are shedding ice with the speed at which the continent itself is losing mass and found that, on average, the shelves lost mass twice as fast as the Antarctic ice sheet did.

“Ice shelf melt can be compensated by ice flow from the continent,” Rignot said. “But in a number of places around Antarctica, they are melting too fast, and as a consequence, glaciers and the entire continent are changing.”

###

 

Other authors are Jeremie Mouginot and Bernd Scheuchl of UC Irvine and Stanley Jacobs of Columbia University. Funding was provided by NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

130 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
S. Geiger
June 13, 2013 5:24 pm

uh, doesn’t this play into the theory of the camp saying that recent energy gains have been realized by ocean warming instead of atmospheric warming?

David, UK
June 13, 2013 5:25 pm

So I guess the solution is to cut those evil CO2 emissions then? You know, that same CO2 that has been proven by satellites and weather balloons to have zero correlation with world temps?

David, UK
June 13, 2013 5:27 pm

Oh sorry, I take your point. Mustn’t forget Trenberth’s heat decided to bury itself in the ocean. Right.

dontdistortthescience
June 13, 2013 5:29 pm

Any why exactly is the water warmer Anthony?

Jeff
June 13, 2013 5:30 pm

The researchers combined a regional snow accumulation model and a new map of Antarctica’s bedrock with ice shelf thickness, elevation and velocity data captured by Operation IceBridge – an ongoing NASA aerial survey of Greenland and the South Pole.
——
snow accumulation MODEL …. lost me right there….what’s so difficult about taking direct measurements? (OK,it’s cold, but someone’s got to do it….).
Makes me think of the 50s and 60s….ooooohhh, the electronic brain said xyz … so it MUST be true…
Questionable data merged with (possibly) good data is still bad, or at the least, questionable.
Why is it when they shake trees in the science buildings/areas, only liberal arts majors fall out?
(Nothing against liberal arts, but there seems to be a distinct lack of reasonableness-checking along with the scientifiic method being left at home…..

Pamela Gray
June 13, 2013 5:33 pm

So where did the warm water come from? You should be able to reverse the SST captures and trace the origins of that warm water.

rustneversleeps
June 13, 2013 5:39 pm

Desperado. When will you come to your senses.
What a VERY odd stretch of this result, as the first commenter realizes. Carry on, I suppose.
Eppur si muove.

June 13, 2013 5:43 pm

No actual measurements of either ice sheet melt by water or water temperatures. Their conclusion seems to be based purely on model outputs.

RACookPE1978
Editor
June 13, 2013 5:45 pm

OKkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk.
So, just how much warmer is that ocean water supposed to be? Compare, for example, the temperature of water in – 1995, then again under the same ice area at the same time of year, in 2005 and 2013.
Read again the “rules” of what they “found” in this so-called study. The increased ice loss is said to be under the small ice shelves, not the 3 big ones.
Snow fall (and inland ice movement) are the sources of ice shelf mass? Didn’t these guys read about the Antarctic continent area is the driest in the world, with only a few cm of total precipitation a year? Where is this snow fall they claim?

DesertYote
June 13, 2013 5:49 pm

dontdistortthescience says:
June 13, 2013 at 5:29 pm
Any why exactly is the water warmer Anthony?
###
What ever the reason, it has nothing to do with atmospheric CO2. That would be like towing a semi-trailer with a moped.

Steve
June 13, 2013 5:51 pm

“a researcher with NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena”
Obviously unqualified to talk about climate science or is there nothing new to discover in their own field /sarc

CodeTech
June 13, 2013 5:53 pm

Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. “Ice is melting too fast”. Too fast for what? How can someone draw valid conclusions about the entire complex system by short term observations?
Why do people instantly conclude that because something is happening it has to be unusual, unprecedented, bad, harmful, dangerous, or anthropogenic? Why??? Is it really so difficult to see how this is the result of brainwashing?
Ocean circulation is NOT stable and eternal. Ocean streams and flows are just as varying and chaotic as atmospheric weather patterns. There happens to be a flow that’s bringing equatorial waters to an area that they don’t always go. BIG DEAL. If this is actually a cause for concern to you, you should be seeking competent medical help. I understand there are promising therapies to handle your panic attacks using SSRIs, coupled with some knowledge.
It’s interesting, and worth documenting, in fact it’s fascinating to watch the planetary thermal equilibrium system at work, but it’s definitely not something to be alarmed about.

Larry Kirk
June 13, 2013 6:11 pm

Most probably natural warming being taken up by natural melting, both in the arctic and the Antarctic. But warming nonetheless. It is still interesting to wonder what is causing the system to warm a little, or at least retain a little more heat. And interesting too to wonder what might it might be like if most of the sea ice where no longer available to take up the additional heat from the oceans, as may well have been the case 9,000 years ago during the Holocene climatic optimum, (when sea levels round here appear to have been some two to four metres higher than at present, judging by the raised beaches, erosional cliff notches and inland strand lines it left along my bit of coastline, just down from my house).

June 13, 2013 6:15 pm

Bob Tisdale does an excellent job of explaining the warming and cooling ocean currents, and I look forward to his analysis of this study.

GlynnMhor
June 13, 2013 6:19 pm

It just means that the models are wrong again.
There will no doubt arise another model tweaked to try to duplicate these findings.
Like the epicycles of geocentric and heliocentric celestial mechanics, more and more tweaks needed to be added on.

rustneversleeps
June 13, 2013 6:28 pm

majormike1
it’ll be something about “cycles” magically taking the overall heat-content stepwise upwards, from “internal variability”. It will have lots of charts as well.
Although this study about attribution of Antarctic ice sheet/shelf melt isn’t about Bob’s “stuff” really…

June 13, 2013 6:31 pm

GlynnMhor says:
June 13, 2013 at 6:19 pm
It just means that the models are wrong again.

Yep. An occupational hazard when you use a conclusion to chase the data.

June 13, 2013 6:32 pm

Steig et al modeled and extrapolated, they got it wrong.
Will they recognize this?

June 13, 2013 6:41 pm

There is another potential game changer that went off earlier today. Several days ago, I had noted that 3 Aleutian/Alaska volcanoes were in different stages of eruption or pre-eruption. The Veniaminof volcano went off today and it,s plume is on a heading SSE. If the eruption continues and holds this heading, then it will be blowing a cover over the primary warm spot, +3.83, that is sitting in the North Pacific. Here is a link to a look at the activity….http://thewatchers.adorraeli.com/2013/06/14/veniaminof/.

arthur4563
June 13, 2013 6:44 pm

As I recall, Tilsdale has provided explanations of the warm currents hitting a portion of the Antarctic where ice melt is occurring. The area is actually disjointed from the continent.
Those who mention Trenberth have misunderstood his whole schemata – the warm ocean water is DEEP, not anywhere near the surface melting any ice.

June 13, 2013 6:53 pm

This reminds me of all the hue and cry over the Greenland melting. Yet if you look at the daily or weekly sst info over the last 6 months, much of Greenland had been surrounded for most of that time. Then over the last several months a cold flow has become dominant and warm waters have been mostly driven away from Greenland. That ‘accelerated’ glacier melt is likely to come to a stop soon.

Latitude
June 13, 2013 7:01 pm

…and our planet is so fragile…a fraction of a degree
Currents change….things change…..get used to it! LOL
Can we send these guys to the Arctic?

June 13, 2013 7:02 pm

arthur4563 says:
June 13, 2013 at 6:44 pm
—————————————-
That would be the West Antarctic Peninsula, which is the northernmost spot of the Antarctic continent. It still shows slightly warm, but only at the northern top of the peninsula. The entire continent, except for that portion, is surrounded by slightly cool water at this time. I read recently that there has been record cold or close to record cold down there in some spots, in the last 2 weeks.

Rod
June 13, 2013 7:02 pm

So warmer waters responsible for most of the melting. The water is obviously not that warm because Antarctica ice extent is near record maximums.

June 13, 2013 7:05 pm

CodeTech says:
June 13, 2013 at 5:53 pm
Honestly, this is getting ridiculous. “Ice is melting too fast”. Too fast for what? How can someone draw valid conclusions about the entire complex system by short term observations?
———————————————————————————————————–
Code Tech has the prime response “Too fast for what?”.

1 2 3 5