University of Washington

Using the most advanced Earth-observing laser instrument NASA has ever flown in space, a team of scientists led by the University of Washington has made precise measurements of how the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have changed over 16 years.
In a new study published in the journal Science on April 30, scientists found the net loss of ice from Antarctica, along with Greenland’s shrinking ice sheet, has been responsible for 0.55 inches (14 millimeters) of sea level rise to the global ocean since 2003. In Antarctica, sea level rise is being driven by the loss of the floating ice shelves melting in a warming ocean. The ice shelves help hold back the flow of land-based ice into the ocean.
The findings come from the Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite 2 (ICESat-2), which was launched into orbit in fall 2018 and began taking detailed global elevation measurements, including over Earth’s frozen regions. By comparing the new data with measurements taken by the original ICESat from 2003 to 2009, researchers have generated a comprehensive portrait of the complexities of ice sheet change – and insights into the future of Greenland and Antarctica.
“If you watch a glacier or ice sheet for a month, or a year, you’re not going to learn much about what the climate is doing to it,” said lead author Benjamin Smith, a glaciologist at the University of Washington. “We now have a 16-year span between ICESat and ICESat-2 and can be much more confident that the changes we’re seeing in the ice have to do with the long-term changes in the climate. And ICESat-2 is a really remarkable tool for making these measurements. We’re seeing high-quality measurements that carpet both ice sheets, which let us make a detailed and precise comparison with the ICESat data.”
Previous studies of ice loss or gain often analyze data from multiple satellites and airborne missions. The new study takes a single type of measurement – height as measured by an instrument that bounces laser pulses off the ice surface – providing the most detailed and accurate picture of ice sheet change to date.
The researchers took tracks of ICESat measurements and overlaid the denser tracks of ICESat-2 measurements from 2019. Where the two data sets intersected – tens of millions of sites – they ran the data through computer programs that accounted for the snow density and other factors, and then calculated the mass of ice lost or gained.
“The new analysis reveals the ice sheets’ response to changes in climate with unprecedented detail, revealing clues as to why and how the ice sheets are reacting the way they are”, said co-author Alex Gardner, a glaciologist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California.
The study found that Greenland’s ice sheet lost an average of 200 gigatons of ice per year, and Antarctica’s ice sheet lost an average of 118 gigatons of ice per year. One gigaton of ice is enough to fill 400,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
Of the sea level rise that resulted from ice sheet meltwater and iceberg calving, about two-thirds of it came Greenland, the other third from Antarctica, Smith and his colleagues found.
“It was amazing to see how good the ICESat-2 data looked, right out of the gate,” said co-author Tom Neumann at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland. “These first results looking at land ice confirm the consensus from other research groups, but they also let us look at the details of change in individual glaciers and ice shelves at the same time.”
In Greenland, there was a significant amount of thinning of coastal glaciers, Smith said. The Kangerlussuaq and Jakobshavn glaciers, for example, have lost 14 to 20 feet (4 to 6 meters) of elevation per year. Warmer summer temperatures have melted ice from the surface of the glaciers and ice sheets, and in some places warmer ocean water erodes away the ice at their fronts.
In Antarctica, the dense tracks of ICESat-2 measurements showed that the ice sheet is getting thicker in parts of the continent’s interior, likely as a result of increased snowfall, Smith said. But the loss of ice from the continent’s margins, especially in West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula, far outweighs any gains in the interior. In those places, the ocean is also likely to blame.
“In West Antarctica, we’re seeing a lot of glaciers thinning very rapidly,” Smith said. “There are ice shelves at the downstream end of those glaciers, floating on water. And those ice shelves are thinning, letting more ice flow out into the ocean as the warmer water erodes the ice.”
These ice shelves, which rise and fall with the tides, can be difficult to measure, said co-author Helen Amanda Fricker, a glaciologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego. Some of them have rough surfaces, with crevasses and ridges, but the precision and high resolution of ICESat-2 allows researchers to measure overall changes, without worrying about these features skewing the results.
This is one of the first times that researchers have measured loss of the floating ice shelves around Antarctica simultaneously with loss of the continent’s ice sheet.
Ice that melts from ice shelves doesn’t raise sea levels, since it’s already floating – just like an ice cube in a full cup of water doesn’t overflow the glass. But the ice shelves do provide stability for the glaciers and ice sheets behind them.
“It’s like an architectural buttress that holds up a cathedral,” Fricker said. “The ice shelves hold the ice sheet up. If you take away the ice shelves, or even if you thin them, you’re reducing that buttressing force, so the grounded ice can flow faster.”
The researchers found ice shelves in West Antarctica, where many of the continent’s fastest-moving glaciers are located, are losing mass. Patterns of thinning show that Thwaites and Crosson ice shelves have thinned the most, an average of about five meters (16 feet) and three meters (10 feet) of ice per year, respectively.
###
The study was funded by NASA. Other co-authors are Johan Nilsson and Fernando Paolo at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory; Brooke Medley, Thorsten Markus and H. Jay Zwally at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center; Nicholas Holschuh at Amherst College; Susheel Adusumilli at the University of California, San Diego; Kelly Brunt at the University of Maryland; Bea Csatho at the University of Buffalo; Kaitlin Harbeck at KBR; and Matthew Siegfried at the Colorado School of Mines.
No mention of range of error or variance of measurement.
Antarctica ice loss 118 gigatonnes plus or minus how much??? 5 percent???
Greenland ice loss 200 gigatonnes plus or minus how much????
Is it a 10 percent error, 20 percent. How as the variance determined.
In science, if you don’t know the variance, you don’t have quantitative information.
The news release is not a published paper.
Is the change from 2003 to 2019 significantly different from zero??
If so, show the basis for your claim.
As for sea level rise, you could say the same, what is the error of estimate.
Is there a trend line? If so, is the slope of the trend line significantly different from Zero.
Rounding off the value to 1 millimeter per year, that means 21st century sea level will rise 100mm, 4 inches.
Is 100 millimeters per century significantly different from the 20th century???
Forgive my astonishing ignorance but what is the mechanism for ice loss if the temperature across the entire continent is below zero degrees C year round? The glaciers are moving forward, hence snow build up to drive them down. Even if the world temperature has gone up .1 degree C in the last 16 years, I just don’t see where it could effect the melting cycle.
Greenland, unlike the Antarctic, has a temperature that can fluctuate above and below freezing and just a little up and down can cause ice loss/gain. Not so Antarctica. Or so I think until I become informed.
SMS
You can have loss by sublimation. However, it generally isn’t of the same magnitude as melting. Most of the melting in Antarctica is probably from geothermal hot spots, and water under floating ice.
Earth’s orbit
Milankovitch cycles
Sunspots
Coronal mass ejections
Magnetosphere
Astronomic cycles
Obliquity/eccentricity/precession
Coriolis effect
Thermohaline circulation
Ocean cycles
ENSO relationship – El Niño/La Nina
How many of these apply?
How many of these
NASA’s 2015 analysis if ICESAT data concluded Antarctic land ice was gaining around 100 gigatons/year since 2000… however, those results were not the droids they were looking for…
I’m so happy our friends at NASA used their Jedi Mind Tricks and “fixed” their Antarctica PR problem.
Sarc/off
has been responsible for 0.55 inches (14 millimeters) of sea level rise to the global ocean since 2003.
OMG! We’re doomed, I say. DOOOOOOOMED…..
That’s the lasers of doom for you buster and you would have been oblivious to your dooming before the invention of the laser. Just thank your lucky stars for lasers so you can get your affairs in order.
If I’m on the shore, I’ll prepare to take a baby-step back.
Let’s not forget that ICEsat2 has frickin laser beams on its head
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7bYNAHXxw
The US should purchase Greenland.
It should be no surprise that glaciers are melting and contributing to sea level rise. We know that sea level was 4 to 6 meters higher 125,000 years ago at the peak of the previous warm, interglacial period; a fact that is never mentioned by the glacier panickers. Maybe they’re ignorant. So chances are sea level will rise for a few thousand years more to catch up. Who knows? But the rate is so slow—2 mm to 3.1 mm per year measured by tide gauges and satellites respectively; the latter having an instrument resolution of 33 to 40 mm, go figure…—that humans can easily adapt.
Also, global sea level was higher just 2 to 6 thousand years ago.
That is, Earth has been cooling for at least 6000 years.
https://notrickszone.com/2m-higher-holocene-sea-levels/
Oh my God!!! Almost a WHOLE ENTIRE MILLIMETER PER YEAR!
I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’m hitting the panic button now.
Ummm …. it’s not a millimetre a year though is it. Meting ice is not the only cause of sea level rise.
OMG SIMON! It’s prb’ly a whole friggin’ 2-3 millimeters a year!!!!!!!!! Run for the hills….
Except that prior to 16 ya there was none.
So obviously we have an acceleration going on.
What will it be 16 y from now, and 32, and 64?
Not an impact on us perhaps but the IPCC doesn’t say there will be.
That awaits our decendents.
Something denizens care not a jot about.
Well, we all know that underneath the west Antarctic ice shelf we have some volcanic activity, don’t we? The shelf is just melting from underneath in that area… The major East Antartica is gaining volume, now as before…
(+emphasis)
“…
In Antarctica, sea level rise is being driven by the loss of the floating ice shelves melting in a warming ocean.
…”
non-sequitur
“…
Ice that melts from ice shelves doesn’t raise sea levels, since it’s already floating – just like an ice cube in a full cup of water doesn’t overflow the glass. But the ice shelves do provide stability for the glaciers and ice sheets behind them.
…”
No.
Grounded glacier noses support the floating ice.
They are melting due warmer water.
That allows inland ice to advance.
Hence SL rise.
F. Ross
From the article:
“In West Antarctica, we’re seeing a lot of glaciers thinning very rapidly,” Smith said. “There are ice shelves at the downstream end of those glaciers, floating on water. And those ice shelves are thinning, letting more ice flow out into the ocean as the warmer water erodes the ice.”
Both my quotes are directly from the article. As written, they cannot both be correct.
Total BS. The margin of error in the measurement is orders of magnitude greater than any changes.
Earlier this week I found very strong circumstantial evidence of NOAA making up numbers when they had missing data on CO2 levels in Mauna Loa air. I would go to Court on this accusation, so confident it is accurate.
Drawing a wide bow, I would also say that any organisation that knowingly releases dud numbers is not to be trusted and needs reprimand.
NOAA cannot claim that they did not know. Part of their job is to set up tests to detect this malpractice. Have they also failed that task, or have they created a new definition of malpractice?
As for ice gains and losses, the reporting over the years has publicised the losses and downplayed the gains, making it hard to picture the overall balance. This cannot be by accident, more likely by design. The design seems to be to alarm the public, but I suggest that it is a function of politicians, not government science bodies, to decide if, when and how alarm should be spread.
Science, overall, is being harmed by these ignorant people. Forgive them, Father, if they know not what they do. Geoff S
Numbers are always the first thing to be manipulated, from media polls to science & everywhere in-between. Reason? So few are left that can understand what’s going on w/their machinations.
I’m not a scientist, far from it, but I have been researching this climate change/global warming/global cooling (yep, I’ve been around long enough to remember the cooling scare in the70’s) since Gore came out with his propaganda movie, and I have concluded it’s one of the more dangerous issues we face in our economic future, I’m afraid for my kids. When I read a post on WUWT, I always read the comments because most of them are by those that are smarter than I am, way smarter and I continue to learn from them. After all my research, it has become apparent this issue is nothing more than the age old plan to redistribute wealth. It didn’t take much research to come to that conclusion, but I continue to read everything I can about the issue to keep myself informed and to recognize the BS when I see it (like this post re: declining ice). My question is, how do we educate the general public they are being fooled? I believe it’s a real problem because the MSM has such a wide sweeping reach.
Speaking of cold conditions here are satellite pics of snow coverage in Australia as seen from space, … https://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/australias-early-season-snow-seen-from-space/531446
Hmm — the entire interior of Antarctica is blue, indicating ice-gain.
There goes Steig, et al., right down the tubes and Nature (London) with them.
I though this was interesting and worth sharing. Posits interior earth and the heating of sub 2000m oceans.
https://theethicalskeptic.com/2020/02/16/the-climate-change-alternative-we-ignore-to-our-peril/
I have yet to explore an instrument used in CliSci that doesn’t have multiple engineering and scientific application problems that render the claimed results dubious. The claimed 0.55 inches SLR over 16 year period contradicts so many other studies. Even if we accept 0.55 inches SLR in 16 years, that is ~ 13ppm/yr variation of a natural process. The climate process is probably measured in decades or centuries and will have cycles. Even so, 13ppm/yr should be considered rock-solid stability in the natural world.
Except for the Western Peninsula, the temperatures rarely exceed 0°C. So no “melting” is happening from global warming. Why is it that NASA force-fits all ice mass loss into “melting”? Ice evaporates. Ice can melt from direct solar radiation. Ice melts when it calves into the sea. Ice mass only increases through snow-fall. Slight variations in precipitation patterns can explain the mass loss. (And maybe some geothermal activity).
It isn’t even challenging any longer to expose the ridiculous claims of these Cli-Sci studies.
But I guess the desired effect was achieved. Google search: “NASA’s ICESat-2 mission map 16 years.”
Google delivers 30 pages of search results, mostly with new articles that summarize the study, of course, with all of the obligatory commentaries from the non-technical “technical writers” who tell us “Climate Change is real, and this is further proof of our Climate Crisis.”
Mission Accomplished NASA
This is how we use our best and latest technology.
The ICESat-2 numbers looked “good”, showing calamity thousands of years from now, and so were taken without question. The Argo buoy numbers weren’t going the “right way”, showing no calamity, so they needed adjusting.
Here is a WWII P-38 found under 300 feet of ice in Greenland after an emergency landing there in 1942. That’s 78 years of observation and nobody had to launch any satellites. Believe nothing from these charlatans.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a22575917/wwii-p-38-discovered-under-300-feet-of-ice-in-greenland/
The idea that you can even measure these changes is absurd. The use of scare metrics (Olympic swimming pools and nuclear bombs) only amplifies the absurdity.
Apparently, 1 Olympic swimming pool (SI unit “osp”) of the minimum depth (which of course we must use to make sure the count of pools is maximized) has a volume of 2,500 m^3 = 2.5e-6 km^3. 400,000 osp = 1.04km^3.
According to WikiP, the total volume of the oceans is 1.3e9 km^3. So 16 years of melting have increased ocean volume by 100 x 1.04 / 1.3e9 = ~1e-7 %. Really? We should worry about this? What is the bigger factor in coastal flooding – wind direction, pumping water out of aquifers, destruction of marshlands, estuary and delta engineering projects, etc. or 0.0000001% increase in the volume of the ocean?
According to WikiP, the total area of Antarctica and Greenland is 14.2e6 + 2.2e6 = 16.4e6 km^2. So 16 years of melting have decreased to average thickness of ice by 1e6 x 1.04 / 16.4e6 = 0.063mm! Color me skeptical that you can measure a fractal surface to that degree of accuracy (over a 16 year span, from space).