Research team breaks the ice with new estimate of glacier melt

March 2, 2010
Research team breaks the ice with new estimate of glacier melt

Enlarge

Northern Arizona University geographer Erik Schiefer surveys a debris-covered glacier margin. Credit: Photo by Amanda Stan

The melting of glaciers is well documented, but when looking at the rate at which they have been retreating, a team of international researchers steps back and says not so fast.

Previous studies have largely overestimated mass loss from Alaskan glaciers over the past 40-plus years, according to Erik Schiefer, a Northern Arizona University geographer who coauthored a paper in the February issue of that recalculates glacier melt in Alaska.

The research team, led by Étienne Berthier of the Laboratory for Space Studies in Geophysics and Oceanography at the Université de Toulouse in France, says that glacier melt in Alaska between 1962 and 2006 contributed about one-third less to sea-level rise than previously estimated.

Schiefer said melting glaciers in Alaska originally were thought to contribute about .0067 inches to sea-level rise per year. The team's new calculations put that number closer to .0047 inches per year. The numbers sound small, but as Schiefer said, "It adds up over the decades."

While the team looked at three-fourths of all the in Alaska, Schiefer noted, "We're also talking about a small proportion of ice on the planet. When massive ice sheets (such as in the Antarctic and Greenland) are added in, you're looking at significantly greater rates of sea-level rise."

Schiefer said the team plans to use the same methodologies from the Alaskan study in other glacial regions to determine if further recalibrations of ice melt are in order. These techniques use satellite imagery that spans vast areas of ice cover.

Previous methods estimated melt for a smaller subset of individual glaciers. The most comprehensive technique previously available used planes that flew along the centerlines of selected glaciers to measure ice surface elevations. These elevations were then compared to those mapped in the 1950s and 1960s. From this, researchers inferred elevation changes and then extrapolated this to other glaciers.

Research team breaks the ice with new estimate of glacier melt
Enlarge

This is a 3-D view of the Barnard glacier in Alaska showing significant quantities of debris that cover the lower parts of the glacier. Credit: Imagery courtesy of CNRS -- French National Center for Scientific Research

Two factors led to the original overestimation of with this method, Schiefer said. One is the impact of thick deposits of rock debris that offer protection from solar radiation and, thus, melting. The other was not accounting for the thinner ice along the edges of that also resulted in less ice melt.

Schiefer and his colleagues used data from the SPOT 5 French satellite and the NASA/Japanese ASTER satellite and converted the optical imagery to elevation information. They then compared this information to the topographical series maps of glacial elevations dating back to the 1950s.

While the team determined a lower rate of glacial melt during a greater than 40-year span, Schiefer said other studies have demonstrated the rate of ice loss has more than doubled in just the last two decades.

"With current projections of climate change, we expect that acceleration to continue," Schiefer said. This substantial increase in ice loss since the 1990s is now pushing up the rise in sea level to between .0098 inches and .0118 inches per year—more than double the average rate for the last 40 years.

Provided by Northern Arizona University

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

joefarah
Mar 02, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (3)
Tell me. How much ice will one colder than average winter add as compared to the net melt?
Scalziand
Mar 02, 2010

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (4)
Here's another thing I wonder: Do studies like this take into account how much the the bedrock under the glacier is being eroded by the glacier?
axemaster
Mar 02, 2010

Rank: 2.6 / 5 (5)
"Tell me. How much ice will one colder than average winter add as compared to the net melt?"

Do you know the meaning of "net melt"?

Then you know how meaningless your question was.
JayK
Mar 02, 2010

Rank: 1.9 / 5 (9)
joefarah: Do you want a real answer, or are you just trolling, as usual? If you don't understand volume, then go away.
Sean_W
Mar 02, 2010

Rank: 2.2 / 5 (6)
Let the average ice gain for several years be 1 unit. Let the extra ice gain in the cold year be 1 unit. Total ice gain that year equals 2 units. Let the total ice lose in that year equals 4 units. Net melt then equals 2 units. Compare extra ice that year with net melt equals 1/2. So in this case "meaningless" equals 0.5 units of ice. The higher the net melt the smaller "meaningless" becomes. The larger the extra ice value is the greater "meaningless" is.

It is called a ratio.

As for measuring elevation of ice to calculate volume and extrapolating loss to other glaciers - it makes me wonder whether they used the same methodology for choosing which glaciers to use as they did for deciding which tree ring samples to use.

O/T Have people like Al Gore started selling their coastal properties due to all this sea level rising yet? Just curious.
JayK
Mar 02, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
@Sean_W: Do you have a real dispute with tree-ring proxies? Do you have a citation or do you have a professional publication that you will be submitting your peer-reviewed article to?
fixer
Mar 02, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
Or are you just a bit smarter than most and worked it out for yourself?
At least your answer provided information,unlike some others here.
Parsec
Mar 02, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
I suppose the only answer that AGW deniers will accept is either 0 net loss, or net gain.

These are reputable scientists publishing in a peer reviewed journal reporting that the overall net loss as previously been overestimated. That means less ice being lost that previously estimated. But ice is being lost overall.
Caliban
Mar 02, 2010

Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
@Scalziand,
I think that you are asking if perhaps some of the mass of the glacier is "hidden" by their possibly digging out a deeper channel in softer strata, and therefore somehow their true extent is being missed? The short answer is no. The depth can be measured with great accuracy by any number of methods.
@SeanW,
Obviously, it would be nearly impossible to measure each and every glacier. So, much like in any other data collection, you take a representative sample. There isn't much likelihood that there will be any statistically significant variation in samples taken at the same Altitude/Latitude.
jonnyboy
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
@caliban
Did you even bother to look at the picture before you made just an obviously inaccurate comment to Sean?
Caliban
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
@jonnyboy,
Did you bother to remove the pipe from your lips before you typed your obviously hallucinatory comment to me?
DachpyarviIe
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 1.7 / 5 (6)
So alarmists was wrong when they stated that Alaskan ice melt will raise global sea levels by 30 feet by 2030!
We now know that the globe has been cooling for the last 70+ years (1934 was warmest year globally on record) and it has been warmer before (the vikings grew pineapples in Greenland).More lies from the communist AGW alarmists :)
Ronan
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
Dachpyarvile, is that an intentional or accidental straw man? No one has EVER predicted that Alaskan ice melt would cause a rise of thirty feet, by 2030 or by any other time. There physically is not enough ice in Alaska to have that effect. I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realize that fact, and also to realize that no one else is ignorant enough to seriously make that claim.

Also, um, 1934 was one of the warmest years (still not the warmest; if I recall correctly 2005 beat it) for the 2% of the Earth's surface that is the US, not for the world. And...wait, pineapples in Greenland?

Pineapple? The South American plant?

(Edit): Ah, never mind. DachpyarviIe with an "I," then; a mimic of dachpyarvile. That...would explain much.
PRADYUMNA
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (2)
With Global warming, just as glaciers would melt, sea water would evaporate faster as air RH falls. so sea level would be the cobined effect of melting ice and faster evaporation near equator. I suspect, that on the whole we will have more water in the sky as clouds. You see the same in hotter planets like jupiter. Obviouslt rains will pour like hell. whenever that happens
PRADYUMNA
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Any icebergs, ice floating on sea near poles will not affect sea level even if all melt. Just take a glass of water, put some ice and mark the level. wait till ice melts. you will see no change in level.
JayK
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
Actually, Pradyumna, the equator isn't going to warm as much as the poles, so the assumed increase in evaporation won't be as great an offset as you might think. Actually modelling the evaporation and cloud cover effect is a major effort right now within climate science.
Loodt
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
JayK,

Why should we believe you when you state that ...the equator isn't going to warm as much as the poles...

I don't believe that statement and challenge you to site real observations that demonstrate beyond doubt, and manipulation of the date, that point.

Or is this just another Mickey Mouse Play Station Model!

At least this article is reporting real science, actual observations, and not some results from another stupid model!
JayK
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
How many citations would you like, Loodt?

http://webarchive...ndex.cfm

http://www.spring...fqghlvk/

http://www.spring...6505620/

The IPCC AR3, AR4 both have those conclusions and it has basically become a fundamental understanding in climate science that the poles will warm faster than the equator.
jet
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Hmm..did not account for SHADE! thats Comedy...

*apologies to slappy squirrel.
JayK
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 1.7 / 5 (3)
If you just prefer pretty graphs:

http://colli239.f...ge-2008/

Scalziand
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (1)
@Caliban:
Cool beans. Thanks for the response.
Loodt
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 1 / 5 (4)
JayK,

Wow, what an impressive list!

IPCC AR3, Boys Own Action Manual, Rock Climbing & Glacier Wartching Annual..

Quoting anything produced by the IPCC carries absolutely no GRAVITAS in the post-Climategate era. Whereas you could have impressed the gang at the tea-trolley with quotes from that document last year, find something more substantial and reliable this year!

The train has left station and you are standing on the platform!
JayK
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 2.5 / 5 (4)
Wow, what an incredible come back, I'm humbled by your knowledge in these weighty manners, sir.
Caliban
Mar 03, 2010

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Any icebergs, ice floating on sea near poles will not affect sea level even if all melt. Just take a glass of water, put some ice and mark the level. wait till ice melts. you will see no change in level.


PRADYUMNA,
Everyone did this experiment in school. You mark the water level in the container BEFORE adding the ice, silly!
operator
Mar 06, 2010

Rank: 3 / 5 (2)
loodt kind of jumping the band wagon with your "climate gate" aspertions ain't you, the inquiries havn't finished as yet but already we're seeing the summary findings from the institute of physicists to the commons committee come under scrutany. seems we have a little problem with oil backed members getting on the IOP boards and casting aspertions about the CRU wihtout its members backing.

so until the inqueries are in, maybe your rubishing of the CRU's data and its methords are a little misplaced, to say the least. but those with a predefined agenda proberly wont be swayed by any of the science.
Rank 4 /5 (10 votes)
Relevant PhysicsForums posts
  • Discrepancy between oxygen and carbon-dioxide levels
    createdFeb 09, 2012
  • where gems are found in the world
    createdFeb 09, 2012
  • Wind Waves in Reservoir ~ Wind run-up and Wind set-up
    createdFeb 08, 2012
  • Balance of oxygen in the atmosphere
    createdFeb 01, 2012
  • The case for a methanol-based economy
    createdJan 30, 2012
  • Weather in a rotating cylinder
    createdJan 25, 2012
  • More from Physics Forums - Earth

More news stories

Humans may have helped the decline of African rainforests 3000 years ago

(PhysOrg.com) -- Large areas of rainforests in Central Africa mysteriously disappeared over three thousand years ago, to be replaced by savannas. The prevailing theory has been that the cause was a change ...

Space & Earth / Environment

created 21 hours ago | popularity 4.3 / 5 (12) | comments 12 | with audio podcast report

Could Venus be shifting gear?

(PhysOrg.com) -- ESA’s Venus Express spacecraft has discovered that our cloud-covered neighbour spins a little slower than previously measured. Peering through the dense atmosphere in the infrared, the ...

Space & Earth / Space Exploration

created 17 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (7) | comments 7 | with audio podcast

NASA budget will axe Mars deal with Europe: scientists

US President Barack Obama's budget proposal to be submitted next week for 2013 will cut NASA's budget by 20 percent and eliminate a major partnership with Europe on Mars exploration, scientists said Thursday.

Space & Earth / Space Exploration

created 20 hours ago | popularity 5 / 5 (2) | comments 18

Two new moons for Jupiter

Advances in technology have lead to the discovery of new planets outside of our Solar System, and now even new moons in our own backyard.

Space & Earth / Space Exploration

created 17 hours ago | popularity 4 / 5 (1) | comments 7

Mars Science Laboratory computer issue resolved

(PhysOrg.com) -- Engineers have found the root cause of a computer reset that occurred two months ago on NASA's Mars Science Laboratory and have determined how to correct it.

Space & Earth / Space Exploration

created 18 hours ago | popularity 4.7 / 5 (6) | comments 3 | with audio podcast


Anonymous knocks CIA website offline (Update)

The website of the Central Intelligence Agency was inaccessible on Friday after the hacker group Anonymous claimed to have knocked it offline.

Google users warned of threat to smartphone wallets

Users of Google smartphone wallets were being warned on Friday that there is a way to crack pass codes intended to thwart thieves from going on illicit shopping sprees.

New error-correcting codes guarantee the fastest possible rate of data transmission

Error-correcting codes are one of the triumphs of the digital age. They’re a way of encoding information so that it can be transmitted across a communication channel — such as an optical fiber o ...

New power source discovered

(PhysOrg.com) -- Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and RMIT University have made a breakthrough in energy storage and power generation.

Small modular reactor design could be a 'SUPERSTAR'

(PhysOrg.com) -- Though most of today's nuclear reactors are cooled by water, we've long known that there are alternatives; in fact, the world's first nuclear-powered electricity in 1951 came from a reactor ...

The power of estrogen -- male snakes attract other males

A new study has shown that boosting the estrogen levels of male garter snakes causes them to secrete the same pheromones that females use to attract suitors, and turned the males into just about the sexiest ...