The map from that article- compare to the one below it, while not exactly the same location, perhaps there is another volcanic process nearby?
There is other support for that idea:
New paper finds West Antarctic glacier likely melting from geothermal heat below
One major contributor to fast glacial flow is the presence of subglacial water, the production of which is a result of both glaciological shear heating and geothermal heat flux.
Here is the PR from Princeton:

During the past decade, Antarctica’s massive ice sheet lost twice the amount of ice in its western portion compared with what it accumulated in the east, according to Princeton University researchers who came to one overall conclusion — the southern continent’s ice cap is melting ever faster.
The researchers “weighed” Antarctica’s ice sheet using gravitational satellite data and found that from 2003 to 2014, the ice sheet lost 92 billion tons of ice per year, the researchers report in the journal Earth and Planetary Science Letters. If stacked on the island of Manhattan, that amount of ice would be more than a mile high — more than five times the height of the Empire State Building.
The vast majority of that loss was from West Antarctica, which is the smaller of the continent’s two main regions and abuts the Antarctic Peninsula that winds up toward South America. Since 2008, ice loss from West Antarctica’s unstable glaciers doubled from an average annual loss of 121 billion tons of ice to twice that by 2014, the researchers found. The ice sheet on East Antarctica, the continent’s much larger and overall more stable region, thickened during that same time, but only accumulated half the amount of ice lost from the west, the researchers reported.
“We have a solution that is very solid, very detailed and unambiguous,” said co-author Frederik Simons, a Princeton associate professor of geosciences. “A decade of gravity analysis alone cannot force you to take a position on this ice loss being due to anthropogenic global warming. All we have done is take the balance of the ice on Antarctica and found that it is melting — there is no doubt. But with the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well-publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human-made climate change.”
Compared to other types of data, the Princeton study shows that ice is melting from West Antarctica at a far greater rate than was previously known and that the western ice sheet is much more unstable compared to other regions of the continent, said first author Christopher Harig, a Princeton postdoctoral research associate in geosciences. Overall, ice-loss rates from all of Antarctica increased by 6 billion tons per year each year during the 11-year period the researchers examined. The melting rate from West Antarctica, however, grew by 18 billion tons per year every year, Harig and Simons found. Accelerations in ice loss are measured in tons per year, per year, or tons per year squared.
Of most concern, Harig said, is that this massive and accelerating loss occurred along West Antarctica’s Amundsen Sea, particularly Pine Island and the Thwaites Glacier, where heavy losses had already been recorded. An iceberg more than 2,000 square miles in size broke off from the Thwaites Glacier in 2002.
In Antarctica, it’s the ocean currents rather than air temperatures that melt the ice, and melted land ice contributes to higher sea levels in a way that melting icebergs don’t, Harig said. As the ocean warms, floating ice shelves melt and can no longer hold back the land ice.
“The fact that West Antarctic ice-melt is still accelerating is a big deal because it’s increasing its contribution to sea-level rise,” Harig said. “It really has potential to be a runaway problem. It has come to the point that if we continue losing mass in those areas, the loss can generate a self-reinforcing feedback whereby we will be losing more and more ice, ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet.”
The Princeton study differs from existing approaches to measuring Antarctic ice loss in that it derives from the only satellite data that measure the mass of ice rather than its volume, which is more typical, Simons explained. He and Harig included monthly data from GRACE, or the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, a dual-satellite joint mission between NASA and the German Aerospace Center. GRACE measures gravity changes to determine the time-variable behavior of various components in the Earth’s mass system such as ocean currents, earthquake-induced changes and melting ice. Launched in 2002, the GRACE satellites are expected to be retired by 2016 with the first of two anticipated replacement missions scheduled for 2017.
While the volume of an ice sheet — or how much space it takes up — is also crucial information, it can change without affecting the amount of ice that is present, Simons explained. Snow and ice, for instance, compact under their own weight so that to the lasers that are bounced off the ice’s surface to determine volume, there appears to be a reduction in the amount of ice, Simons said. Mass or weight, on the other hand, changes when ice is actually redistributed and lost.
Simons equated the difference between measuring ice volume and mass to a person weighing himself by only looking in the mirror instead of standing on a scale.
“You shouldn’t only look at the ice volume — you should also weigh it to find the mass changes,” Simons said. “But there isn’t going to be a whole lot of research of this type coming up because the GRACE satellites are on their last legs. This could be the last statement of this kind on these kinds of data for a long time. There may be a significant data gap during which the only monitoring available will not be by ‘weighing’ but by ‘looking’ via laser or radar altimetry, photogrammetry or field studies.”
Harig and Simons developed a unique data-analysis method that allowed them to separate GRACE data by specific Antarctic regions. Because the ice sheet behaves differently in different areas, a continent-wide view would provide a general sense of how all of the ice mass, taken together, has changed, but exclude finer-scale geographical detail and temporal fluctuations. They recently published a paper about their computational methods in the magazine EOS, Transactions of the American Geophysical Union, and used a similar method for a 2012 paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that revealed sharper-than-ever details about Greenland’s accelerating loss of its massive ice sheet.
Robert Kopp, a Rutgers University associate professor of earth and planetary sciences and associate director of the Rutgers Energy Institute, said the analysis method Harig and Simons developed allowed them to capture a view of regional Antarctic ice loss “more accurately than previous approaches.” Beyond the recent paper, Harig and Simons’ method could be important for testing models of Antarctic ice-sheet stability developed by other researchers, he said.
“The notable feature of this research is the power of their method to resolve regions geographically in gravity data,” Kopp said. “I expect that [their] technique will be an important part of monitoring future changes in the ice sheet and testing such models.”
###
The paper, “Accelerated West Antarctic ice mass loss continues to outpace East Antarctic gains,” was published in the April 1 edition of Earth and Planetary Science Letters. The research was supported by the National Science Foundation (grant nos. PLR-1245788 and EAR-1014606).
Abstract
While multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, different measurement techniques estimate the details of its geographically highly variable mass balance with different levels of accuracy, spatio-temporal resolution, and coverage. Some scope remains for methodological improvements using a single data type. In this study we report our progress in increasing the accuracy and spatial resolution of time-variable gravimetry from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). We determine the geographic pattern of ice mass change in Antarctica between January 2003 and June 2014, accounting for glacio-isostatic adjustment (GIA) using the IJ05_R2 model. Expressing the unknown signal in a sparse Slepian basis constructed by optimization to prevent leakage out of the regions of interest, we use robust signal processing and statistical estimation methods. Applying those to the latest time series of monthly GRACE solutions we map Antarctica’s mass loss in space and time as well as can be recovered from satellite gravity alone. Ignoring GIA model uncertainty, over the period 2003–2014, West Antarctica has been losing ice mass at a rate of −121±8 Gt/yr and has experienced large acceleration of ice mass losses along the Amundsen Sea coast of −18±5 Gt/yr2, doubling the mass loss rate in the past six years. The Antarctic Peninsula shows slightly accelerating ice mass loss, with larger accelerated losses in the southern half of the Peninsula. Ice mass gains due to snowfall in Dronning Maud Land have continued to add about half the amount of West Antarctica’s loss back onto the continent over the last decade. We estimate the overall mass losses from Antarctica since January 2003 at −92±10 Gt/yr.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15000564
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1. I would be interested to see the authors explanation for why the most significant accumulation appears right adjacent to the most significant supposed ice loss.
2. Since the supposed ice loss in the area in question is getting on for 5 meters, it would have been a trivial exercise to have confirmed this supposed loss with a few aircraft altimetry transects. Why has this not been done?
3. Any abstract that starts with an unsupported assertion can only go downhill from there:
While multiple data sources have confirmed that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, different measurement techniques estimate the details of its geographically highly variable mass balance with different levels of accuracy, spatio-temporal resolution, and coverage.
4. Is the aim of the paper to ‘force us to take a position on AGW’ or to report science?
… Frederik Simons, a Princeton associate professor of geosciences. “A decade of gravity analysis alone cannot force you to take a position on this ice loss being due to anthropogenic global warming. All we have done is take the balance of the ice on Antarctica and found that it is melting — there is no doubt. But with the rapidly accelerating rates at which the ice is melting, and in the light of all the other, well-publicized lines of evidence, most scientists would be hard pressed to find mechanisms that do not include human-made climate change.”
The other day, we were treated to an article on an ice core that had the benefit of continuing annual snowfall in East Antarctic for 68,000yrs and the altitude of much of East Antarctica is above the average of the Sierra Nevada which keeps it deep frozen. It hasn’t thawed there for more than 20million years. A year or two ago, temperatures of -93C, the coldest ever recorded were reported on.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2013/12/10/antarctica-cold-record/3950019/.
And basically most of W. Antarctica is believed to be under a hot mantle plume which has generated chains of volcanoes under ice and on the sea floor..
http://www.livescience.com/40720-marie-byrd-seamount-volcano-source.html
I wonder. Could the reason for the change in mass, as calculated in the study, be off shore? That ice is likely moving. If it’s moving, it is grinding. If it’s grinding, there is likely a tremendous amount of Earth being ground up and moved elsewhere. If there are valleys, that ground up rock may be filling up that valley. Or it may be getting dumped off shore as the ice calves and dumps material into the ocean. In other words, it ain’t the ice that’s losing mass.
http://www.livescience.com/27715-antarctica-before-ice.html
Look, once someone figures out why sometimes my ice-cube trays stick and shatter the cubes, and at other times freely release them from the trays, it might shed some light on the glacier/ground interaction.
Maybe I just need to pour stronger drinks 🙂
#(;)), you are living proof that some people can’t take a gentle hint. Your lead-off remark on this thread contained a misinterpretation of what the subject article was saying. Siberian Huskie suggested you review your comment and reconsider.
At 6:21, you come up with “(given that in common English usage, ‘the balance of’ usually means ‘the greater part of’)” In what universe? In this one, it means nothing of the sort.
And at 6:40, you decide to bitch-slap SH in a rude, uncalled-for accusation of trolling. Maybe you did some research, maybe you didn’t, but SH’s comment in this case was in no way out of line.
In your snide comment directed to me at 8:03 this morning we read: “After reading the majority of comments on this thread, you can still say that??” First, one question mark would have been sufficient, just as LOL doesn’t need to be rendered lololol, duh.
Second, if there’s anything to be learned on this site (and there’s always a great deal on offer), it is that scientific facts are not established by majority opinion. In the instant article, I certainly do not agree with the conclusions and projections implicating so-called AGW in the matter, but absent contrary information, I’ve no reason to dispute the basic claim that the ice loss in West Antarctica (for whatever reason) is approximately twice the mass of ice gain in East Antarctica. And you know better, exactly how? (_._)
Not to come to her aid (she is brainy and can fend for herself), I prefer to debate this piece of research based on its merits. And I cannot ignore the lack of attention paid to whether or not the outcome cause and effect statement is robust (IE the authors appeared to have concluded that no other plausible or even possible cause has been or will be found). However, if indeed that was the assumption, the article is void of that introductory literature review.
So I content that proper groundwork is absent in the article under consideration. An observation of an effect was made yes, but a proper review of all possible causes is glaringly absent. It appears that an a priori assumption was made and then efforts were made to point to that assumption. This is a common weakness in nearly all global warming research. One that irritates the hell out of me and ruffles my Irish-red feathers. And it takes a herculean effort to hold my tongue and not be all grapefruit and sour lemons. While her point was not on-point, her tongue I get.
“… if we continue losing mass in those areas, the loss can generate a self-reinforcing feedback whereby we will be losing more and more ice, ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet.”
Let’s see… at Earths radius of 6.37×10^6 meters and ocean coverage at about 70%, to raise the oceans 3 meters, just shy or 10 feet would take an additional 1.0E+15 metric tons of added water over land it seems.
Calcs:
(6371000 m)² * 4*pi * 70% * 3 meters = 1.0E+15 m³ or equiv. metric tons of added water. So at 92 billion tons of melt per year it would take 1.0E+15 m³ / 92E+09 m³ or 11,600 years for this to occur, the ten feet of rise… or also the mean yearly rise would be 3000 mm/55,555 years or just 0.25 mm of additional yearly sea level rise. or another way to look at it that 0.25 mm/yr may just be part of the normal sea level rise and has been occuring over the last 1000 years.
Is this calculated correct (roughly)? I did that fast. Or did I read that correct or miss something? It seems their “ultimately” is many millennia down the road.
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sfc_daily.php?plot=ssa&inv=0&t=cur
I do not think so. Look at the data .
As the ocean warms, floating ice shelves melt and can no longer hold back the land ice.
From the article.
Where is the ocean warmth? My question.
A lightbulb moment. There was something about this study that bothered me. Unfortunately the thread is almost over.
GRACE measures gravity to minute proportions. The study purports to assign ice thickness changes to changes in gravity. Cannot be done. You also have to have equally precise seawater temperatures to account for the density changes from that. Then you need precise geo-mapping data for any pockets of low density magma in the area. See where this goes?
And you need to account for rock fall-out. All glaciers carry mass not related to water but to rock and debris. Does the method account for the natural uptake and fall-out of this material and the fact that it varies depending on what layer the glaciers have been grinding off?
Heh. If this paper had a long enough time line to be accorded significance, it would be truly alarming.
What would a long term increase in ice mass where there is no volcanic activity to melt it mean? Obvious conclusion (except to devotees of the Saints Mann and Gore).
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/05/03/antarctic-sea-ice-expands-to-new-record-in-april/
The reality which does support the bogus message of this article, even though this data I am sending is about sea ice but I think this can be applied to the continental ice sheet of Antarctica. .
Wish I had more time to read stuff on this site. (Taking care of Mom with dementia, but even she is not as delusional as anthropogenic global warming devotees.) Is there an explanation by these clowns as to why a GLOBAL climate change is only affecting one side of Antarctica. Is there a magical CAGW-free zone on the other side? Will humanity be forced to relocate there and live on penguin meat some day?