Environment

Study reveals massive yearly ice loss in the Antarctic and Greenland

Study reveals massive yearly i...
An image showing the amount of ice gained or lost in Antarctica between 2003 and 2019
An image showing the amount of ice gained or lost in Antarctica between 2003 and 2019
View 2 Images
An image showing ice changes in Greenland between 2003 - 2019
1/2
An image showing ice changes in Greenland between 2003 - 2019
An image showing the amount of ice gained or lost in Antarctica between 2003 and 2019
2/2
An image showing the amount of ice gained or lost in Antarctica between 2003 and 2019

A new paper has revealed that Greenland and the Antarctic have lost a staggering amount of mass from their ice sheets over the last 16 years thanks to climate change, and that the melting has contributed to sea level rise. The researchers drew on satellite measurements that were taken by bouncing masses of laser bursts off the Earth’s surface.

Since its launch in 2018 atop a ULA Delta II rocket, NASA’s Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat-2) has been tirelessly at work taking measurements of our changing planet. The cutting-edge spacecraft carries with it a single scientific instrument – the Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System, also known as ATLAS.

ATLAS is capable of firing off 10,000 laser pulses each second, which bounce off the Earth below and are then collected by ICESat-2’s receiver telescope. By recording the amount of time it takes for photons to return to the spacecraft, and referencing this data with the probe’s exact orbital position, NASA is able to calculate the height of Earth’s landscape with phenomenal accuracy.

For the new study, researchers used data from the ICESat-2 mission, and combined it with that of its predecessor ICEsat – which was active between 2003 and 2009 – in order to accurately determine how the colossal ice sheets and shelves of the Antarctic and Greenland have changed over time.

"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.”

The team took topographical data from ICESat detailing the height of ice sheets and shelves, and overlaid observations made in 2018/19 by ICESat 2. Where the datasets intersected, the team was able to calculate how much ice was lost or gained, while accounting for factors such as snow density.

The satellite observations revealed a notable thinning of the coastal glaciers in Greenland, which in places lost 14 to 20 ft (4 to 6 m) of height each year. Rising summer temperatures were found to have melted a huge quantity of ice from the sheets, while warmer oceans eroded the sea-ice front in some areas.

Conversely the thickness of the ice sheet in certain regions in Antarctica – mostly in the interior of the continent – was found to have increased as a result of heavy snowfall. However, this increase is dwarfed by the ice loss to the ocean.

The melting of ice shelves does not contribute to sea level rise directly, as they are already floating in the ocean and displacing water. However, they do act as a kind of stopper, slowing the flow of shelf ice into the sea. With a weaker shelf, the sheet ice will pass into the ocean at a faster rate, accelerating the speed at which the sea level is rising.

The Crosson and Thwaites ice shelves, which are located in West Antarctica and are responsible for holding back fast flowing glaciers, were found to have thinned by an average of three meters (10 ft) and five meters (16 ft) respectively year on year.

Overall, Greenland’s ice sheet is estimated to have lost on average 200 gigatons of mass per year, while Antarctica’s ice sheets melted to the tune of 118 gigatons of ice per year. According to a release from the University of Washington, a single gigaton of ice would be enough to fill 400,000 Olympic swimming pools.

The authors of the study state that the ice losses contributed to a rise in sea level of around 14 mm (0.55 inches) since 2003.

The paper has been published in the journal Science.

Source: University of Washington

4 comments
aksdad
And yet, we see no corresponding acceleration of sea level rise since 2003, so that ice melt must have been happening long before then or other glaciers suddenly stopped melting while Antarctica took up the slack. The only acceleration in sea level rise is the recently manufactured one in a 2018 study that tries to bring the current long-term measured trend suggesting 0.31 meters of sea level rise by 2100 into better agreement with the notoriously inaccurate climate model prediction from the RCP8.5 scenario of 0.65 meters by 2100. (Never mind that tide gauge data suggests more like 0.2 meters.) They apparently didn't notice that the long-term sea level rise trend has decreased slightly over the last few years from 3.4 millimeters per year to 3.1. It keeps getting harder to reconcile the difference. Funny how a certain group of climate scientists always trusts the models more than measurements and tweaks the measured data to fit the models instead of the other way around. See http://sealevel.colorado.edu/.
Jay Gatto
I look out the window and I see tides are consistently higher. I used to work the shore at low tides.
ljaques
OHMYGODWEREALLGONNADIEAGAINAGAIN! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_Antarctica for a bit more perspective. What these studies always fail to state is that when you notice some specific area of depletion, there is a near identical addition to snowpack somewhere else in the world. And the last major horror (Ross Ice Shelf disconnect) didn't happen rapidly. The crack happened between 2011 and 2018, a full SEVEN YEARS. And then nobody studied what was happening under it for months. I can't believe these researchers' gaping holes of curiosity.
Kpar
Jay Gatto, we are still using tidal charts drawn up one hundred years ago. Please explain.