Canadian glaciers now major contributor to sea level change

Canadian glaciers now major contributor to sea level change, UCI study shows
Canada's glaciers and ice caps are now a major contributor to sea level change, a new UCI study shows. Ten times more ice is melting annually due to warmer temperatures. Seen here is the edge of the Barnes Ice Cap in May 2015. Credit: NASA / John Sonntag

Ice loss from Canada's Arctic glaciers has transformed them into a major contributor to sea level change, new research by University of California, Irvine glaciologists has found.

From 2005 to 2015, surface melt off ice caps and glaciers of the Queen Elizabeth Islands grew by an astonishing 900 percent, from an average of three gigatons to 30 gigatons per year, according to results published today in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

"In the past decade, as air temperatures have warmed, surface melt has increased dramatically," said lead author Romain Millan, an Earth system science doctoral student.

The team found that in the past decade, overall ice mass declined markedly, turning the region into a major contributor to . Canada holds 25 percent of all Arctic ice, second only to Greenland.

The study provides the first long-term analysis of ice flow to the ocean, from 1991 to 2015.

The Canadian ice cap has glaciers on the move into the Arctic Ocean, Baffin Bay and Nares Strait. The researchers used satellite data and a regional climate model to tally the "balance" of total gain and loss each year, and the reasons why. Because of the huge number of glaciers terminating in area marine basins, they expected that discharge into the sea caused by tide water hitting approaching glacier fronts would be the primary cause.

Canadian glaciers now major contributor to sea level change, UCI study shows
This infographic details the dramatic change in Canadian ice melt. Credit: UCI

In fact, they determined that until 2005, the was caused about equally by two factors: calving icebergs from glacier fronts into the ocean accounted for 52 percent, and melting on glacier surfaces exposed to air contributed 48 percent. But since then, as atmospheric temperatures have steadily climbed, surface melt now accounts for 90 percent.

Millan said that in recent years ice discharge was only a major component in a few basins, and that even rapid, short term increases from these ice fields only had a minor impact on the long-term trend.

Millan added, "We identified meltwater runoff as the major contributor to these ice fields' mass loss in recent years. With the ongoing, sustained and rapid warming of the high Arctic, the mass loss of the Queen Elizabeth Islands area is likely to continue to increase significantly in coming decades."


Explore further

Ice loss accelerating in Greenland's coastal glaciers, study finds

Journal information: Environmental Research Letters

Citation: Canadian glaciers now major contributor to sea level change (2017, February 14) retrieved 25 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2017-02-canadian-glaciers-major-contributor-sea.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
868 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 14, 2017
and no matter how cold it is where you are it will be the hot hot ! hottest yr EVAH !

Feb 14, 2017
Its an interesting geological fact that prehistoric animals such as the mastodon,woolly mammoth, saber toothed tiger that lived in the upper latitudes ... that somehow the remains of these animals are found to have been Flash Frozen. Perhaps the earth is finally defrosting back to its normal, average temperatures?
Keep in mind that it would take tons of vegetation to feed a herd of mammoths which hints at a much warmer, lusher past for Canada.

Feb 14, 2017
You are both showing a lack of understanding of AGW. Snoosebaum is making the classic 'skeptic' error of conflating weather with climate. Before you embarrass yourself further, simply look at the definitions of each. Rich Diggins, there is no "normal" climate. Climate is a dynamic system that has been changing since the Earth was formed. What concerns scientists is that humans are now changing climate conditions far faster than life systems can can adapt. And likely far faster than humanity (at anything close to current population levels) can adapt. Just as an aside, the Wholly Mammoth was wholly for a reason....it was adapted to cold climate conditions. The current evidence points to the arrival of humans into their environment as the likely cause of their demise....not a colder climate.


Feb 14, 2017
The "Edit" function seems not to be working, so please read "Woolly" not "Whoolly".

Feb 14, 2017
"What concerns scientists is that humans are now changing climate conditions far faster than life systems can can adapt."

However the flash freezing of plant and animal life occurred without human intervention. When compared to past extremes, I would say the the current temperature trends are not as extreme as you would have us believe.

Feb 14, 2017
And so the pathological FAKE "science" of the AGW Cult continues.
Never mind that the Arctic melted more and faster during the 1930s, because that does not bode well for the cult's dogma of human cause doom and gloom.

Feb 14, 2017
What concerns scientists is that humans are now changing climate conditions far faster than life systems can can adapt.

Yes and that too has happened naturally in the past with, of course, mass extinction as the result.Of course collapse of the ecosphere isn't a problem for conservatives. Nothing compared to the devastation caused by a 1% tax.

Feb 14, 2017
"Of course collapse of the ecosphere isn't a problem for conservatives. "

Sounds like the usual doom and gloom. Too many hollywood movies?

The woolly mammoth, and the amount of vegetation that it must have taken to sustain those creatures ... points to the fact that the earth has been much warmer in the past.

The temperatures required to flash freeze something are probably on the order of -40 to -60 deg F. ... perhaps colder.

Even now, depending on who's data you look at, the temperature has risen 1.53 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 100 years.

I see no devastation on the horizon, aside from liberals trying to play god.


Feb 15, 2017
The fossil record proves that the greatest abundance and diversity of life occurred during Earth's warm eras. Cold weather is inhospitable.

Feb 15, 2017
I thought the greenland ice sheet was the most critical, or was it the antarctic, or was it the ice on Africa? It is hard to keep track of all the boogeymen these days. Everyone wants their cut of funding pie and so everyone exaggerates the importance or impact of their work.

I guess it is better if we all freeze in the dark, smug in our belief that we "saved the earth" rather than focus our efforts on real issues and actually help people and the environment.


Feb 15, 2017
"What concerns scientists is that humans are now changing climate conditions far faster than life systems can can adapt."

However the flash freezing of plant and animal life occurred without human intervention. When compared to past extremes, I would say the the current temperature trends are not as extreme as you would have us believe.


Which if true is irrelevant because humans are still changing climate conditions far faster than life systems can can adapt

Feb 15, 2017
The fossil record proves that the greatest abundance and diversity of life occurred during Earth's warm eras. Cold weather is inhospitable.

Which is irrelevant because rapid man made warming will reduce diversity of life via extinctions of various species that cannot adapt fast enough to that change and then it takes MILLIONS of years for totally new species to evolve and genetically adapt to warmer climate.

Feb 15, 2017
I thought the greenland ice sheet was the most critical, or was it the antarctic, or was it the ice on Africa? It is hard to keep track ...

FactsReallyMatter

Yes, it is hard for any science-ignorant ranting and raving moron like you who pretends to understand the science too keep track of what the real science actually says. In fact, you will never and have never kept track of it. You see, the thing is, to ever once keep track of it, you have to first know something about it.

Feb 15, 2017
And global sea level rise continues to creep along at around 1.5 or 3.4 mm per year*, the same as it's been for the last century with no apparent significant acceleration. Yawn.

http://climate.na...a-level/

* tide gauge data says 1.5 mm/yr (6 inches/century) while satellite telemetry says 3.4 mm/yr (13 inches/century)

Feb 15, 2017
And global sea level rise continues to creep along at around 1.5 or 3.4 mm per year*, the same as it's been for the last century with no apparent significant acceleration. Yawn.

http://climate.na...a-level/

* tide gauge data says 1.5 mm/yr (6 inches/century) while satellite telemetry says 3.4 mm/yr (13 inches/century)


The application of the physics equations shows it will accelerate in the future as glaciers melt. Do deny this is to deny basic proven physics.

Feb 15, 2017


The application of the physics equations shows it will accelerate in the future as glaciers melt. Do deny this is to deny basic proven physics.

misedit;

"Do deny this..."

should be

"To deny this..."

Feb 15, 2017
and no matter how cold it is where you are it will be the hot hot ! hottest yr EVAH !

Weather. Climate. Learn the difference. If you can't then stay out of discussions for grown-ups.

that somehow the remains of these animals are found to have been Flash Frozen.

That's a new one. Do you even kow what 'flash freezing' means? Source for this outrageous claim? Or is this just another Trump post-factoid?

I thought the greenland ice sheet was the most critical, or was it the antarctic, or was it the ice on Africa?

Admit it: you didn't think at all.

I guess it is better if we all freeze in the dark

What are you babbeling about. What part of any action proposed would cause anyone to freeze, let alone be in the dark.

Jeez. It's like the asylum let all the monkeys out to bash their heads against keyboards.

Feb 15, 2017
And global sea level rise continues to creep along at around 1.5 or 3.4 mm per year*, the same as it's been for the last century with no apparent significant acceleration. Yawn.

http://climate.na...a-level/

* tide gauge data says 1.5 mm/yr (6 inches/century) while satellite telemetry says 3.4 mm/yr (13 inches/century)


The 1870 to 2000 tide gauge data says 1.5 mm/yr while the 1995 to 2016 satellite telemetry says 3.4 mm/yr .

Looks like acceleration to me.

Feb 15, 2017
I thought the greenland ice sheet was the most critical, or was it the antarctic, or was it the ice on Africa? It is hard to keep track of all the boogeymen these days.


The article says "a major contributor to sea level change" not "the major" or "most critical".

Why are you finding it so hard to "keep track of all the boogeymen", you're the one who is making them up.

Read the article before commenting, facts really DO matter.

Feb 15, 2017

The article says "a major contributor to sea level change" not "the major" or "most critical".
Why are you finding it so hard to "keep track of all the boogeymen", you're the one who is making them up.


It is the AGW cult that is attempting to mislead and scare everyone into irrationally supporting a radical course of action.

This is the topic that I am referring to, you clearly are discussing something else.

Plus if climate is not weather, where to draw the distinction between them? Does a record hot temp day prove AGW, what about a month, what about a year, decade? The AGW cult clearly has a rather ambiguous definition, as any time a record high is broken we hear all about this proves AGW. However, when it doesn't support the narrative then someone trots out "climate is not weather."

Once again, the AGW cult can't keep the story straight.

Feb 15, 2017

The article says "a major contributor to sea level change" not "the major" or "most critical".
Why are you finding it so hard to "keep track of all the boogeymen", you're the one who is making them up.


It is the AGW cult that is attempting to mislead and scare everyone into irrationally supporting a radical course of action.


What is this "AGW cult" you keep talking about? and what "radical course of action" do they propose?

This is the topic that I am referring to, you clearly are discussing something else.


I was discussing the article, as you were. Your comment obviously related to the title of this article, I say title because it is equally obvious you didn't read beyond that point before posting your knee jerk cant diatribe.

Feb 15, 2017
Same problem here in Austria: http://tirolatlas...;id=1710 There you can see images showing the changes of the glaciers' lengths. Red is bad, green is good.

Feb 15, 2017
Yet here they are stable, if not growing, but better if we ignore these ones:

Himalayas are stable
http://www.curren...1008.pdf

Scotland growing their own
http://www.bbc.co...28885119

also try the hubbard glacier

and the list is much longer

Feb 15, 2017
"The researchers used satellite data and a regional climate model to tally the "balance" of total gain and loss each year, and the reasons why."

I'd question how accurate satellite data is especially for "melting on glacier surfaces" which is supposedly 48% of the loss. Further the density of the ice varies thru the glacier (higher density near the bottom). And I sure hope the climate model isn't used to measure the loss.

Feb 15, 2017
That's a new one. Do you even kow what 'flash freezing' means? Source for this outrageous claim? Or is this just another Trump post-factoid?


Oh look, antialias_physorg and his usual ignorant humor.

Scientists have been dining on the carcasses of these frozen animals. ... and the unfortunate truth is that the animals were frozen to death with their undigested food still in the stomach. There is even a report of a Siberian mammoth that bled profusely when removed from the ice.

Point being, yes these animals were flash frozen by some type of dramatic climate freezing event.

Where are your facts to disprove what I am saying?

antialias_physorg is an ass.

Feb 15, 2017
Yet here they are stable, if not growing, but better if we ignore these ones:

Himalayas are stable
http://www.curren...1008.pdf
-FactsDontMatterToFactsReallyMatter

From your own source, "The net loss in 10,250.68 sq. km area of the 2018 glaciers put together was found to be 20.94 sq. km or 0.2% (+/- 2.5 % of 20.94 sq.km)." Only an idiot would think that a net loss was "stable, if not growing."

Feb 15, 2017
Our CO2 emissions wall fall drastically after most of us die off. So fear not climate warriors, one way or another you win.

BULL SH! Actually CO2 emissions will not drastically fall away after we all die off. Once release into the atmosphere, it lingers as a greenhouse gas for about 1500 years! So as you add on the new CO2 building on top the previous, global warming of the planet grows and grows exponential (in a nice hockey stick ). That Mr. Num-nuts is why people like me worry about liars like you. AGW is an extinction event in progress.

Feb 16, 2017
...Only an idiot would think that a net loss was "stable, if not growing."


One paper, out of others, amongst many others that can be googled. You couldn't even read that one paper completely.

Let me summarise this one paper for you:
Humalayas ~ total of 2018 glaciers
1752 of these have no change
248 showed at least some retreat (even if just a few meters in some cases)
18 advanced.

Of total coverage area of ~10,000 km2 the total loss was ~20 km2 over a ten year period.
You tell me when we will all drown at this rate??

Yah, that is a stable glacier population in terms of AGW - which is striking us now according to AGW cultists. Speaking of which:

"....AGW is an extinction event in progress."

Only for AGW funding!!

Feb 16, 2017
Factsmonkeymatters fumbled his facts....yet again...as usual, in what way do you think you understand science...Exactly ? or are those 3 peanuts in your skull just trying as hard as they can to make you think you know anything....

AGW is REAL monkeynuts, it has been happening for DECADES The people who does have brains KNOW that, it is due to Human Induced Climate changed proven over DECADES of Real Scientific research ?

Only YOU can't interpret the science which is why Your credibility goes down the stinkhole everytime you dumb thumb a Dumb comment to the physics website.

Feb 16, 2017
"Only for AGW funding!!"

This idiot always comes up with this line. Always showing how ignorant he is for the funding big oil provides for expanding their destructive operations upon this earth.

Always defending the fossil fuel industry for destroying the planet, and filling their already overflowingly filthy greedy coffers with more and more, if the earth one day should be a wasteland, they will pretend it's not a problem, because they have only one god which they worship GREED, and stepping over anything needed to get it is their sole religion.

Feb 16, 2017
Hatred of oil companies does not form the basis for sound judgement, as oft evidenced by AGW cultists.

Feb 16, 2017
Scientific Proof and Evidence of what Oil companies does relentlessly without conscious nor care for his fellow human beings and the earth does make for Crystal Clear Sound Judgment as evidenced by the Goliath amount of Scientific Evidence throughout decades of work, there is no such thing as "Climate Change cult", this is the real world with real consequences ;)

Feb 16, 2017
... this is the real world with real consequences


only in the models!

Feb 16, 2017
Nope, in REAL life, you have been proven over and over to NOT
understand the science, only to pick on certain points thinking you
have found evidence against climate change, which proves you wrong... everytime !

Feb 16, 2017
Only in the models inside his own head indeed, he seems to not be able to trust anything outside of that dimension... :D

Feb 16, 2017
Get a thermometer. Read the science.

Ignore political prejudice and the emotional censoring of unpleasant facts.

Feb 16, 2017
No as always you misinterpreted what was being said antigoracle sock, or is that you only read the first sentence (like you always do)

Look at antigoracle sock bschot, he has nothing else to debate because he have cornered himself into a hole because of all his lies desperately picking on a dumb argument to try and at least make him look less dumb, sorry monkey, you dug that hole deep, it only add's to the hilarious image you portray towads the outside, and the hole is getting deeper by the day on your current course.

Once CO2 is released into the atmosphere, it lingers as a greenhouse gas for about 1500 years! So as you add on the new CO2 building on top the previous, global warming of the planet grows and grows exponential.

Obviously he meant if not everyone dies off, however, one can put a bag over your head and while you pass out of the CO2, you still would say it wasn't CO2 THATS how stupid you are.

Feb 16, 2017
The little harsh words you exchange is barely but to pretend you and him are not the same person,
you are only fooling yourself numBnuts.

It's only you that keeps b@sh!tting Yourself and your socks, sadly but truly, until you can comprehend any real science, thats how it will always be.

Feb 16, 2017
Well they are easily off set by the Asian glaciers that have been expanding for 7 years. Couple that with 155,000 square mile expansion of the polar ice caps in 2014 and further growth in 2015 and 2016. The lame liberal BS is thick on PhysOrg and you cannot trust them to report the truth on theses matters. Its a shame and sometimes you wonder about other things that might get edited, redacted, exaggerated, faked, augmented, or is just plain phony.

Feb 16, 2017
Couple that with 155,000 square mile expansion of the polar ice caps in 2014 and further growth in 2015 and 2016.


Really?

https://sites.goo...-sea-ice

Feb 16, 2017
Wow, talk about a bunch of Num=nut climate deniers goons. Sp for the really slow deniers and flakes out there, let me explain what CO2 does. We need to look at something on the planet called the Carbon cycle, and if you so desire I say wikipedia it or google it. Fossil fuels are just a form of sequestered carbon but when it undergoes the process of combustion, it is now moved from sequestration to the active carbon cycle. Once released it takes a very long time for that additional carbon to be removed from the carbon cycle, 1500 yrs is the estimate. Since we have been burning coal that accumulates and throws the balance of the carbon cycle of.

So it is complete BULL SHI&
Our CO2 emissions wall fall drastically...
. But add in that CO2 is a GHG and you have trouble. You won't read this but for fun try;

http://earthobser...effects/


Feb 17, 2017

LMAO...ironically I have fooled you without even trying...you are a 5 year old magicians dream audience.


RFMLAO the only one you've been fooling is YOU and your socks, you are a baboons wet dream, As YOU are caught out each day posting the dumbest Sh!t known to men on this site.
That's everyday ;)

Feb 17, 2017

A person who would label remote data "real science" over in situ measurements, thinks words mean the exact opposite of what they do(as demonstrated above), confuses two completely different commenters and enters into a comment thread the way you did with name calling and accusations (just like nothot) has as much scientific understanding as the crap I took this morning...but a lot less value to society.
And that is truly how it will always be.


You are confused by nature, to think that evidence ONLY relies on models, but then again those 3 corn seeds bumping about in your skull never could bring you to any sort of conclusion as to the meaning of reality, your understanding of science is worse than a twerp, Proven by every post, you always seem to eat your own cheap crap, just like a real monkey ;) :D

Feb 17, 2017
Well said Howhot, i doubt the gooners will understand it though.

Feb 17, 2017
The models are all the AGW cult have. It forms the basis for the predictions and radical policy proposals to freeze everyone in the dark.

What, you have a time machine and brought back data from 2100? Honestly, I expect some of the AGW cultists to answer "yes, I do have a time machine" as they really are that delusional.

Feb 17, 2017
Nope, but thumbsucking, puppetry, see through lies, self inflicting insults is all the denier trolls have, and i know we'll be seeing more of that....soon.

Feb 17, 2017
The models are all the AGW cult have. It forms the basis for the predictions and radical policy proposals to freeze everyone in the dark.
.

Nope! models are all well and good but predictions about what we are experiencing across the globe have been out for more than 20years in any serious way, and they are all scarily accurate. Human activity will: result in an increase in severity of heatwaves, increased aridity, increased fire risk from larger areas being affected by hotter drier conditions, increased risk of flooding due to more erratic and intense rainfall, loss of biodiversity due to inability of plants and animals to adapt quickly enough.... A delusion is having a fact in front of you and not able to accept it based on a false conception.

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