Sea-level surge at Antarctica linked to icesheet loss

Aug 31, 2014
Icicles are formed by the melting of a glacier in west Antarctica. The melt here is rapid and has been accelerating, injecting greater quantities of freshwater into the ocean and raising sea levels. Credit: Mike Meredith

Sea levels around Antarctica have been rising a third faster than the global average, a clear sign of high meltwater runoff from the continent's icesheet, scientists said on Sunday.

Satellite data from 1992 to 2011 found the sea surface around Antarctica's coast rose by around eight centimetres (3.2 inches) in total compared to a rise of six cm for the average of the world's oceans, they said.

The local increase is accompanied by a fall in salinity at the sea surface, as detected by research ships.

These dramatic changes can only be explained by an influx of freshwater from melting ice, warned the study.

"Freshwater is less dense than salt water, and so in regions where an excess of freshwater has accumulated, we expect a localised rise in sea level," said Craig Rye from Britain's National Oceanography Centre, who led the probe.

The estimate of ice loss and the precise source of it are hard to pin down, though.

According to the team's computer model, around 350 billion tonnes a year of freshwater influx, plus or minus 100 billion tonnes, would explain the rise.

This estimate puts together freshwater from the ground-based icesheet and also from the thinning of ice shelves—floating ice that is attached to the coast and created by glaciers disgorging from the icesheet.

Most of the meltwater is being discharged around the Antarctic peninsula—the giant finger of land that juts towards South America—and in the Amundsen Sea.

"Accelerating discharge from the Antarctic icesheet has had a pronounced and widespread impact on the adjacent subpolar seas over the past two decades," said the study.

The stability of the Antarctic ice sheet is one of the big factors in the global warming equation.

The biggest single source of freshwater in the world, it would drown many coastal cities if a large part of it were to melt.

Getting an accurate fix on this risk, though, is bedevilled by unknowns, partly because the icesheet is also gaining mass in some places through greater snowfall.

According to the newly-published Fifth Assessment Report by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ice loss from Antarctica probably rose from 30 billion tonnes a year to 147 billion tonnes annual in the decade to 2001.

The global mean sea level rose by 19 centimetres from 1901-2010, an average 1.7 mm per year, according to the IPCC's report.

This accelerated to 3.2 mm per year between 1993 and 2010.

The panel projected sea levels would rise between 26 and 82 cm by 2100.

Explore further: Changing Antarctic winds create new sea level threat

More information: Rapid sea-level rise along the Antarctic margins in response to increased glacial discharge, Nature Geoscience: dx.doi.org/10.1038/ngeo2230

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Better forecasts for sea ice under climate change

Nov 25, 2014

University of Adelaide-led research will help pinpoint the impact of waves on sea ice, which is vulnerable to climate change, particularly in the Arctic where it is rapidly retreating.

User comments : 34

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Shootist
1.7 / 5 (23) Aug 31, 2014
"The myth of the lost ice sheet"

http://www.dailym...now.html
Dr_Who
1.9 / 5 (23) Sep 01, 2014
*You are actually a science site, not just a political site pretending to be science, right? Reviewed the arctic ice thickness lately? Guessing , no... You know the Arctic ice, the stuff Al Gore said wouldn't exist by now? It is increasing. WTF??? In eighth grade I was taught that the next climate change was going to be an ice age. Well posted, Shootist. Not that referencing that will get Hillary elected. God knows, she's the latest "Change" Right???
wasp171
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 01, 2014
The same BS repeated on and on...
Goebbels' propaganda on the hands of greedy pseudo scientists and NGOs.
It's sad to see how deep and spread this sham is around the world.
orti
1.8 / 5 (12) Sep 01, 2014
Why'd the study stop at 2011?
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (19) Sep 01, 2014
The same BS repeated on and on...
Goebbels' propaganda on the hands of greedy pseudo scientists and NGOs.
It's sad to see how deep and spread this sham is around the world.


Wasp idiot: Just what do you consider to be BS in this report? Please tell us what is not factual and give us links to your sources. I am calling BS on you because your comment is unsubstantiated and typical trolling behavior.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2014
Orti dummy said:
Why'd the study stop at 2011?


I don't know but would bet it is because they needed curated data and it was not available.

Are you implying that stopping the data in 2011, somehow, negates their conclusions?

If you are implying the conclusions are wrong would you please explain why you think they are wrong?
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (18) Sep 01, 2014
Dr. Stupid said:
*You are actually a science site, not just a political site pretending to be science, right? Reviewed the arctic ice thickness lately? Guessing , no... You know the Arctic ice, the stuff Al Gore said wouldn't exist by now? It is increasing. WTF??? In eighth grade I was taught that the next climate change was going to be an ice age. Well posted, Shootist. Not that referencing that will get Hillary elected. God knows, she's the latest "Change" Right???


Complete bolox. Quoting Al Gore on a science site. Trying to make people believe the arctic ice is increasing in thickness when that is only true for comparing ice from 2012 with the present thickness. That is because 2012 was an anomalously low year. Both 2013 and 2014 are very low with respect to the decades before. That is not what Dr. Stupid wants people to think. Go ahead and correct me with blogs and FoxNews Dr. Stupid.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 01, 2014
"The myth of the lost ice sheet"

http://www.dailym...now.html


Mr dyson shootist: Care to take a look at this.

The myth of the returning ice....

http://psc.apl.wa...V2.1.png
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (14) Sep 01, 2014
Most of the meltwater is being discharged around the....

area affected by geothermal activity.
The final acts of desperation from the AGW Cult.
There will still be lots of ice for that final batch of Kool-Aid,
runrig
4.5 / 5 (15) Sep 01, 2014
Most of the meltwater is being discharged around the....

area affected by geothermal activity.
The final acts of desperation from the AGW Cult.
There will still be lots of ice for that final batch of Kool-Aid,

Clinging to straws there my friend.
Geothermal activity is one factor in melt in one glacier in the WAIS - the Thwaites glacier.
And NOT the prime cause of ALL melt in the WAIS.
Sorry about that but another epic fail.
"Thwaites Glacier, the large, rapidly changing outlet of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, is not only being eroded by the ocean, it's being melted from below by geothermal heat............"

www.phys.org/news...mal.html

Vietvet
4.7 / 5 (14) Sep 01, 2014
It's not just the ice sheets, it's http://www.thegua...-ratethe total volume of ice loss.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2014
It's not just the ice sheets, it's http://www.thegua...-ratethe total volume of ice loss.


Thanks Viet..
From the article...
"The planet's two largest ice sheets – in Greenland and Antarctica – are now being depleted at an astonishing rate of 120 cubic miles each year. That is the discovery made by scientists using data from CryoSat-2, the European probe that has been measuring the thickness of Earth's ice sheets and glaciers since it was launched by the European Space Agency in 2010.

Even more alarming, the rate of loss of ice from the two regions has more than doubled since 2009, revealing the dramatic impact that climate change is beginning to have on our world."

BTW the link is broken ...here
http://www.thegua...reenland
runrig
4.4 / 5 (14) Sep 02, 2014
Further from the Guardian link.....

"It was found from the average drops in elevation that were detected by CryoSat that Greenland alone is losing about 90 cubic miles a year, while in Antarctica the annual volume loss is about 30 cubic miles. These rates of loss – described as "incredible" by one researcher – are the highest observed since altimetry satellite records began about 20 years ago, and they mean that the ice sheets' annual contribution to sea-level rise has doubled since 2009, say the researchers whose work was published in the journal Cryosphere last week"

RWT
1.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2014
Which data do I trust? The sea level altimeter satellite data that attempts to measure the average elevation of the sea surface which is constantly moving up and down with waves and currents. Data that has also been shown to have major discrepancy between satellites. Or do I trust land altimeter satellite data from the ICESAT program of the Antarctic Ice Sheet that measures a relatively stable surface and has shown that the ice sheet has actually increased in size overall, with East Antarctica gains more than making up for West Antarctic losses.

It's far too cold throughout the entire year for ice to melt over the vast majority of Antarctica, the sea level altimeter satellites have shown to have major discrepancies with each other and tidal gauges, and Old Byrd Station as well as old transmission lines are now buried deep underneath glaciers.

I'll choose to believe the credible data and ignore the CAGW propaganda.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2014
I'll choose to believe the credible data and ignore the CAGW propaganda.


You choose to choose the data that confirms (doesn't but never mind ) the data that best fits your ideology..... which is why deniers will never get it.
sirfiroth
1.4 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2014
runrig, got any credible sources other than that bastion of Science the Guardian?
NISDC is a good source! You should try checking credible sources, it might surprise you!
http://nsidc.org/...icenews/
"Antarctic sea ice remains at a daily record high, and 1.19 million square kilometers (459,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average. Sea ice extent is now higher than average nearly everywhere around the continent, except for a portion of the northwestern Weddell Sea."
Why should you let a little credible data stand in the way of your AGW religion?
supamark23
5 / 5 (7) Sep 02, 2014
Which data do I trust? The sea level altimeter satellite data that attempts to measure the average elevation of the sea surface which is constantly moving up and down with waves and currents. Data that has also been shown to have major discrepancy between satellites. Or do I trust land altimeter satellite data from the ICESAT program of the Antarctic Ice Sheet that measures a relatively stable surface and has shown that the ice sheet has actually increased in size overall, with East Antarctica gains more than making up for West Antarctic losses.

It's far too cold throughout the entire year for ice to melt over the vast majority of Antarctica, the sea level altimeter satellites have shown to have major discrepancies with each other and tidal gauges, and Old Byrd Station as well as old transmission lines are now buried deep underneath glaciers.

I'll choose to believe the credible data and ignore the CAGW propaganda.


Sounds like a winner - for a fucking moron like you.
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2014
Sirfirof said:
runrig, got any credible sources other than that bastion of Science the Guardian?
NISDC is a good source! You should try checking credible sources, it might surprise you!
http://nsidc.org/...icenews/
"Antarctic sea ice remains at a daily record high, and 1.19 million square kilometers (459,000 square miles) above the 1981 to 2010 average. Sea ice extent is now higher than average nearly everywhere around the continent, except for a portion of the northwestern Weddell Sea."
Why should you let a little credible data stand in the way of your AGW religion?


Do you have any idea what you are saying? Sea ice has a minimal causal link to sea level. Don't you understand that the sea ice can accumulate while sea level goes up? In fact, they are talking about lower salinity so the fresher water will more readily freeze. Ice sheets, not sea ice, have a causal link to new fresh water entering the oceans. I guess you just skipped (or flunked) physics.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2014
runrig, got any credible sources other than that bastion of Science the Guardian?
NISDC is a good source! You should try checking credible sources, it might surprise you!
http://nsidc.org/...icenews/

Try looking up the reasons for Antarctic sea-ice expansion. There has been several on here. And also do try to realise that the planet is not going to respond everywhere the same to overall accumulation of solar energy. It is highly complex in it's storage/distribution of heat.
Oh, you may like to research (HaHa) the effect that the O3 hole has had - again recently on here.
runrig
4.7 / 5 (12) Sep 02, 2014
I'll try again as the f***g editor f***d-up.

I do refer to credible sources Sirfir, I have no need to do otherwise as the science confirms all I say.
Hence the recent post by me on this thread of this....

http://psc.apl.wa...anomaly/

Try looking up the reasons for Antarctic sea-ice expansion. There has been several on here. And also do try to realise that the planet is not going to respond everywhere the same to overall accumulation of solar energy. It is highly complex in it's storage/distribution of heat.
Oh, you may like to research (HaHa) the effect that the O3 hole has had - again recently on here.
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2014
Thermos wrote:
Do you have any idea what you are saying? Ice sheets, not sea ice, have a causal link to new fresh water entering the oceans. I guess you just skipped (or flunked) physics.


I know exactly what I am saying, maybe it is your comprehension is lacking! If global sea ice is above average how is the sea level rising? Perhaps you can explain?
As a scientist you should know the practice of presenting global or ocean basin averages of sea level trends is, to say the least, misleading.

http://venturapho...ise.html

"The results from this analysis of western U. S. tide gauge data and comparison to other tide gauge and satellite altimetry data make it clear that there will be no alarming rise sea level in the 21st century and should not be more than that in the previous century and may be less."

http://www.regula...070-0127
supamark23
5 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2014
sirfiroth the stupid, did you even see the title of this article or read any of it? Talking about ice sheets, which start out on land... maybe shut the fuck up until you get to at least a 3rd grade education level.
thermodynamics
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2014
Thermos wrote:
Do you have any idea what you are saying? Ice sheets, not sea ice, have a causal link to new fresh water entering the oceans. I guess you just skipped (or flunked) physics.


I know exactly what I am saying, maybe it is your comprehension is lacking! If global sea ice is above average how is the sea level rising? Perhaps you can explain?
As a scientist you should know the practice of presenting global or ocean basin averages of sea level trends is, to say the least, misleading.

http://venturapho...ise.html


Sirf: Do you really care about why you are wrong? If you do care, I will gladly give you the information to be able to go through the steps on analysis yourself. However, there are many on this site who don't care and I don't want to waste my time with a lengthy post if you really don't care. Just let me know if you are interested and I will, gladly, go through the steps. If not, just let me know so I don't waste my time.
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (10) Sep 02, 2014
runrig, that was quite a bit of hyperbole you spouted and with absolutely no empirical evidence to support the misstatements. The empirical evidence based on every ice core has shown CO2 increases have never, in the past 400,000 years, caused temperature rise. Can provide that peer review paper, based on empirical evidence, showing CO2 to be causative of atmospheric warming? Without it all contentions, computer models and anything supporting anthropogenic global warming are nothing more than speculation!

Care to try again?
sirfiroth
1 / 5 (9) Sep 02, 2014
sirfiroth the stupid, did you even see the title of this article or read any of it? Talking about ice sheets, which start out on land... maybe shut the fuck up until you get to at least a 3rd grade education level.


supamark23, name calling and accusing one of ignorance is a common defensive tactic used when there is insufficient factual evidence to satisfy an inquiry! From the speed of your reply you have absolutely no idea of what I actually said! You might want to try actually reading the post and following the links! If you are representative of the intelligence on this board then there is less science on this board than is present in a 6th grade science class.
supamark23
4.3 / 5 (11) Sep 02, 2014
sirfiroth the stupid, did you even see the title of this article or read any of it? Talking about ice sheets, which start out on land... maybe shut the fuck up until you get to at least a 3rd grade education level.


supamark23, name calling and accusing one of ignorance is a common defensive tactic used when there is insufficient factual evidence to satisfy an inquiry! From the speed of your reply you have absolutely no idea of what I actually said! You might want to try actually reading the post and following the links! If you are representative of the intelligence on this board then there is less science on this board than is present in a 6th grade science class.


You're not worth the trouble of being nice. Then again, you resorted to insults in the post previous to the one I'm responding to... but the reality is you're either too stupid to understand the science involved, or wilfully lying - neither paint a flattering picture of you.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2014
I know exactly what I am saying, maybe it is your comprehension is lacking! If global sea ice is above average how is the sea level rising? Perhaps you can explain? .....


I'll explain it for you.
Have you ever heard of Archimedes?
You know the ancient Italian guy, who sat in a bath and suddenly shouted eureka? Or was that Newton.
What he had discovered was his principle, that a floating object displaces it's own mass in water.
Now sea-ice floats, and is formed at sea (crucial bit).
Try measuring a quantity of water in a jug. Remove some of it and freeze it. Put it back into the jug. Has the water level risen?
Your query would be reasonable if the sea ice was formed from land-ice carving. It isn't.

Also measurements of increased loss of land ice from Greenland and Antarctic taken by Cryosat 2....
http://www.esa.in...e_losses
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2014


Care to try again?


I will, yes.....
Not because the penny will drop with you, but simply because this is a science site and as such I do not let ignorance win.

You are correct that CO2 (in the past) has followed temperature. Temperature changes that have occurred due the orbital eccentricities of this planet.
However the crucial bit there is the bit in brackets.
Humans have reversed the process and we have created the CO2 in the atmosphere rather than it being excreted from the biosphere. Therefore CO2 is now leading. It does both. A feed-back and a driver... because of it's GHG warming properties - which are NOT up for argument.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Sep 03, 2014
Yet the US, which led the world in GHG emissions, has been cooling for over the last 80 years.
Explain that runrig.
sirfiroth
1.4 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2014
supamark23, wrote:
You're not worth the trouble of being nice. Then again, you resorted to insults in the post previous to the one I'm responding to... but the reality is you're either too stupid to understand the science involved, or wilfully lying - neither paint a flattering picture of you.


To the ignorant empirical evidence can be perceived as an insult!

http://www.regula...070-0127
"The results from this analysis of western U. S. tide gauge data and comparison to other tide gauge and satellite altimetry data make it clear that there will be no alarming rise sea level in the 21st century and should not be more than that in the previous century and may be less."
supamark23
5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2014
supamark23, wrote:
You're not worth the trouble of being nice. Then again, you resorted to insults in the post previous to the one I'm responding to... but the reality is you're either too stupid to understand the science involved, or wilfully lying - neither paint a flattering picture of you.


To the ignorant empirical evidence can be perceived as an insult!

http://www.regula...070-0127
"The results from this analysis of western U. S. tide gauge data and comparison to other tide gauge and satellite altimetry data make it clear that there will be no alarming rise sea level in the 21st century and should not be more than that in the previous century and may be less."


Wait, a 3 year old comment on a US gov't regulation is your proof? We're talking about Antarctica ice sheet loss, dumbass, not Pacific NW coastal regulations in 2011 for fucks sake. You're even dumber than I thought (and that's really stupid).
shavera
5 / 5 (8) Sep 03, 2014
Yet the US, which led the world in GHG emissions, has been cooling for over the last 80 years.
Explain that runrig.


It's almost... as if.... atmosphere... surrounds the entire planet. Like... the stuff we produce here can... I don't know what the word is for it... float? breeze? drift? across the entire planet's atmosphere.

And that the average temperatures, not just surface land temperatures, indicate that on the whole, the planet has more thermal energy every year, even if some local areas haven't had the same impact as the whole thing.

Who knew that the US was just one piece of land on the whole planet? I thought the world literally was only us!
supamark23
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2014
Yet the US, which led the world in GHG emissions, has been cooling for over the last 80 years.
Explain that runrig.


Easy, either you're lying (quite likely, you lie a lot here) or too stupid to understand what you're referencing (also quite likely, you're really stupid). Either way, as usual, you're full of crap.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Sep 03, 2014
Yet the US, which led the world in GHG emissions, has been cooling for over the last 80 years.
Explain that runrig.


It has has it??

http://www.noaane...size.jpg

Even if it was it's only 2% of the planet and the what does the G stand for in AGW ( as in averaged).

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.