Climate Science Glossary

Term Lookup

Enter a term in the search box to find its definition.

Settings

Use the controls in the far right panel to increase or decrease the number of terms automatically displayed (or to completely turn that feature off).

Term Lookup

Settings


All IPCC definitions taken from Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Annex I, Glossary, pp. 941-954. Cambridge University Press.

Home Arguments Software Resources Comments The Consensus Project Translations About Donate

Twitter Facebook YouTube Pinterest

RSS Posts RSS Comments Email Subscribe


Climate's changed before
It's the sun
It's not bad
There is no consensus
It's cooling
Models are unreliable
Temp record is unreliable
Animals and plants can adapt
It hasn't warmed since 1998
Antarctica is gaining ice
View All Arguments...



Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here
Forgot your password?

Latest Posts

Archives

Climate Hustle

Why do glaciers lose ice?

What the science says...

Antarctica is losing ice because its glaciers are speeding up. This is due to melt water lubricating the base of the glaciers and the removal of ice shelves which act as a "speed bump" slowing the glacier flow. The ice shelves are thinning due to warming ocean waters.

Climate Myth...

Antarctica is too cold to lose ice
"The real issue is absolute temperatures. Some of the regions in which GRACE claims ice loss in East Antarctica average colder than -30°C during the summer, and never, ever get above freezing. How can you melt ice at those temperatures?" (Steve Goddard)

Glaciers are large viscous masses of ice which creep naturally through a process called internal deformation. This “creep” or movement is caused by gravity and the weight of accumulated snow and ice forcing the ice to deform like plastic.


(Figure 1: Midtsdalsbreen, Southern Norway, Personal Photograph)

Glaciers gain mass through accumulation of snowfall and through re-freezing of meltwater but lose mass (termed ablation) through surface melt, basal melt, sublimation and iceberg calving (Figure 2, right). The accumulation of ice primarily occurs in the glacier’s accumulation zone and ice loss generally originates in the glacier’s ablation zone (Figure 2, left).


(Figure2, accumulation/ablation zones, www.physicalgeography.net, image of calving glacier on right)

For an ideal glacier, ice flow through a cross-section must exactly balance the accumulation and ablation taking place (Benn and Evans, 1998, 142). The difference between the total gains and losses measured over a specified time refers to the mass balance. Mass balance is usually measured over the course of a year which computes the sum of all the annual accumulation and ablation (Benn and Evans, 1998, 75). The velocity at which a glacier moves whereby its Mass Balance is 0 represents the point at which its inputs (through accumulation) equals its outputs (through ablation) and is termed the Balance Velocity (Figure 3).


Figure 3: (Left) Balance Velocities for Antarctica as illustrated in Bamber et al (2009). (Right) Actual velocities across the ice sheet as measured by Rignot and Thomas (2002).

As every individual basin is rarely in balance, the actual velocities of glaciers/ice streams across Antarctica shows that many glaciers have velocities in excess of their balance velocity and many are less than their balance velocities (Figure 3, right).

The question of balance velocities brings us to one of the most important points of this post. When a glacier is in balance or flowing at its balance velocity, net mass will remain balanced. However, when a glacier accelerates while near or at its balance velocity, the outputs resultantly increase but the inputs do not, thereby shifting the glacier regime to one of negative mass balance or net ice loss. This situation is particularly important because accelerated ice flow is the key method through which the Antarctic ice sheets incur a net ice loss. Accelerations such as these occur through two primary mechanisms. The first of which is caused by surface melt water reaching the glacial bed causing basal lubrication therefore reducing the frictional forces at the bed and thus increasing ice flow (Bell 2008).

The second mechanism refers to when the forces at the downstream terminus of a glacier or ice stream are disturbed or altered. This can occur through removing buttressing ice shelves or by shifting the glacier’s grounding line (point where glacier ice reaches floatation). The presence of an ice shelf provides a longitudinal compressive force which slows the flow of ice streams. If removal of this compressive force occurs, velocity of ice streams increase. This has been observed directly by Scambos et al (2004) and Rignot et al (2004) through both visual observations (Scambos) and radar interferometry (Rignot).

In terms of a grounding line retreat, an inland shift of the grounding line causes less backpressure through increased calving and basal melting. This process results in increased glacier velocities and subsequent inland thinning as more ice is being pulled from the accumulation zone (Bell 2008). In a warmer climate, one would expect that surface melting would increase, making the first mechanism more likely, however because of Antarctica’s climate and the omnipresence of ice shelves and calving glaciers there, the second mechanism actually dictates the ice losses from Antarctica. Evidence has already been presented which supports the theory that it is warm ocean water in West Antarctica which is in actuality enabling this second mechanism (Shepherd, Wingham and Rignot, 2002).

We should all now at least remotely understand that mass balance changes in Antarctica aren’t reliant on surface melting but rather depend on dynamic responses such as the 2nd mechanism.

Intermediate rebuttal written by robert way


Update July 2015:

Here is a related lecture-video from Denial101x - Making Sense of Climate Science Denial

Additional videos from the MOOC

Expert interview with Eric Rignot

Expert interview with Isabella Velicogna

Last updated on 8 July 2015 by pattimer. View Archives

Printable Version  |  Offline PDF Version  |  Link to this page

Comments

Comments 1 to 14:

  1. Forget ice slides and ice shields, that has been happening for millions of years. The question is: Is the Antarctic getting larger because of the cooling that is taking place in this region of the world? Is ice getting larger in this area?
  2. To answer Barney's question, no. Antarctica is experiencing a net loss of land ice. There is also a slight increase in Antarctic sea ice, but that's a different subject (and it's not caused by "cooling" in any case, since the southern ocean is actually warming).

    See Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
  3. barney2022, the volume of Antarctic ice is decreasing. Obviously that is the 'most important' issue overall, but the article above explaining WHY the ice volume is now in decline is certainly also relevant... despite involving processes which have existed for a very long time. Also, you say "cooling that is taking place in this region of the world"... actually, Antarctica has warmed considerably in the past few decades.
  4. You can see the mass balance for antarctica at the following link

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Response-to-Goddard.html
  5. Chapter 10 Figure 10.7 in the IPCC's AR4 shows negative numbers across the board for the contribution of the Antarctic Ice sheet to Sea level rise which would indicate that Antarctica is gaining ice.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html

    All the other numbers in table 10.7 are positive.
  6. 5, Steve,

    I'm not sure what your point is, but it's important to read everything, and not just stop when you find something you like. That's not what I'd call "skeptical."

    I have a lot more research to do, but after just a few minutes work...

    First, remember the report was released in 2007, meaning it was based on data compiled before then. In particular, however, the section you linked to includes these words:
    Further accelerations in ice flow of the kind recently observed in some Greenland outlet glaciers and West Antarctic ice streams could increase the ice sheet contributions substantially, but quantitative projections cannot be made with confidence (see Section 10.6.4.2).


    Just a year later, a study found that ice lose in Antarctica was in fact accelerating:

    Antarctic is losing ice ‘nearly twice as fast as ten years ago’

    In addition, I don't know what GRACE data was available at the time. The satellite was only launched in 2002, and some years would be needed to identify a trend -- a very serious and bad trend, it turned out. From NASA's GRACE pages:
    Gravity data collected from space using NASA's Grace satellite show that Antarctica has been losing more than a hundred cubic kilometers (24 cubic miles) of ice each year since 2002. The latest data reveal that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate, too.


    At the same time, the numbers in the IPCC AR4 report do not seem to have used GRACE data at all (although they could have). They were instead based on models that apparently predicted mass gain in the Antarctic (if we are interpreting that table correctly).

    But it was based on model runs, and so limited by assumptions made in constructing the models. It would appear that the models then did not take into account what has since been discovered, and explained fairly clearly in the above post.

    Appendix 10.A: Methods for Sea Level Projections for the 21st Century
  7. 5, Steve,

    Just to highlight the obvious to anyone, in case it's not... what all of this means is that the IPCC AR4 underestimated sea level rise, because it counted on a negative rather than a positive contribution from Antarctica.

    This means that things are, once again, worse than expected, and the IPCC was too conservative (= non-alarmist) in its projections.
  8. Based on the post, I get the impression that the causal connection between (CO2 driven) rising global temperature and the decline in Antarctic land ice can be summerazised as follows:
    1) CO2 causes an increase in surface air temperature
    2) From 1) an increase in ocean temperatures follow
    3) The warmer ocean causes ice shelves at the terminus of the glaciers to thinnen, making them lighter and thus given less resistance to the ice flow of the glaciers
    4) From 3) an increase in glacier velocity occurs and this removes more ice from the accumulation zone, the result being that the glacier shrinks.

    Is this an accurate summary of how more CO2 is leading to less antarctic land ice? Suggestions and corrections are more than welcome
  9. Regarding my post #8
    I am most interested in the first 2 points, I think that point 3 and 4 are well explained in Shepherd, Wingham and Rignot, 2002.

    Assumming my points 3 and 4 are correct my question then is if this is correct:
    1) CO2 causes an increase in surface air temperature
    2) From 1) an increase in ocean temperatures follow, specifially ocean currents at thee Western antarctic

    And points 3 and 4 as above
  10. I agree with this article.I also had read an article from Boston globe, it’s an article about severe melting of ice sheet that is found in Antarctica. It’s said that a team of European scientists has found some ice sheet melting in East Antarctica during the summer months, in an area that is supposed to be too cold for perceptible ice loss. The ice sheets is weak throughout its structure. The glaciers is a large mass of ice, so it’s very hard to melt or it will take a long time to melt. But now it not take long time as in the past to melt. The glaciers are melting because of warming ocean water. Warming ocean water is caused by global warming. We have to solve this problem straightforward. In this article it’s said, we should all now at least remotely understand that mass balance changes in Antarctica aren’t reliant on surface melting but rather depend on dynamic responses such as the 2ndmechanism. I also have a question. Is it possible for melted ice to form its original ice form again?

  11. It seems the melting of the land ice of the west coast has to be found in the volcanoes underneath the glaciers that have been discovered, not in human activity. A 2017 study claimed to have found 138 volcanoes, of which 91 were previously unknown. See :

    https://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/early/2017/05/26/SP461.7

  12. In addition to my previous post : Evidence for elevated and spatially variable geothermal flux beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet
    https://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9070
    " Our results further suggest that the subglacial water system of Thwaites Glacier may be responding to heterogeneous and temporally variable basal melting driven by the evolution of rift-associated volcanism and support the hypothesis that both heterogeneous geothermal flux (6) and local magmatic processes (5) could be critical factors in determining the future behavior of the WAIS."

  13. btw Roque , it is best to keep your comments on one thread, not spread between two threads . . . which gets messy and confusing.

    I have replied on your other thread.  (The issue is a nothingburger, basically.   But sea-level rise might increase faster, if, as some suggest, AGW-caused melting of West Antarctic ice leaves a lighter weight of ice . . . which might allow an increase in volcanic activity undereneath. )

  14. As Eclectic notes, do not post the same comment on more than 1 page here.  Put it on the most appropriate thread and wait for feedback.

    Repeated from the other thread, augmented by extra content in response to the Schroeder paper:

    The paper itself makes it clear that this result only applies to the area of the Thwaites Glacier. Not the WAIS in its entirety nor the rest of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, all of which are showing significant mass losses. Per the PAPER:


    "We estimate a minimum average geothermal flux value of about 114 mW/m2 with a notional uncertainty of about 10 mW/m2 for the Thwaites Glacier catchment with areas exceeding 200 mW/m2"


    So not a lot more than actual mean heat flows of continents and oceans, which are 65 and 101 mW m−2, respectively. And just in the area of Thwaites Glacier. A very tiny subset of the WAIS, itself a small portion of the overall Antarctic Ice Sheet.

    Further, the authors of the paper have themselves repudiated misinterpretations of their paper:


    "Dear Cryolist,

    The last couple of days have been interesting. What seemed like an innocuous chat with a San Antonio AM radio station about the findings of our new paper on geothermal flux under Thwaites Glacier rapidly turned into a confusing internet news story on how we had disproven anthropogenic global warming (this news story has now been taken down at our request). This is obviously not the case.

    For the record:

    -Our study has no bearing on whether or not anthropogenic global warning is occurring.

    -The amount of basal melting we find, although elevated compared to typical values estimated for Antarctica, is minor compared with both ice flux over the grounding line, snow fall in the catchment, and near the grounding line, the implied geothermal melting is small compared to the ice lost observed through various methods.

    -We believe the main effect of this elevated heat flow is on the distribution and evolution of basal traction in the catchment. There may be a role for time varying interior boundary conditions to influence ice dynamics, complementing the now well established links to ice shelf thinning and ocean dynamics.

    By and large, the media response to the paper has been accurate, but there obviously have been some outliers."

    Cheers,

    Duncan Young, Don Blankenship, Enrica Quartini and Dustin Schroeder


    Additionally, vulcanism has been present in Antarctica for well over 50 million years.

    The ice sheet there formed 34 million years ago, and persisted since, in spite of that vulcanism. A subglacial heat mantle plume would have produced detectable subglacial drainage and melting events. None has been detected for the Pine Island Glacier and the adjacent Thwaites Glacier has proven largely insensitive to the presence of such a mantle heat source:


    "volcanic heat does not contribute significantly to the glacial melt observed in the ocean at the front of the ice shelf"


    And


    "the heat source beneath the Pine Island Glacier is roughly 25 times greater than the bulk heat flux from an individual dormant volcano"


    The heat coming from the geothermal activities under the ice is not a whole lot more than that coming from a dormant volcano.

    People walk on dormant volcanoes. Trees grow on them.

    In Antarctica, ice forms on them.

    Marie Byrd Land

    The volcanic heat plume mentioned under the ice of a portion of Antarctica is fossil heat; its last activity predates the formation of the Antarctic Ice Sheet (itself more than 34 million years old).


    "The plume is far older than the recent period of atmospheric warming; indeed, at 50 million to 110 million years old, it's older than our species and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet itself."


    So the ice in the area formed anyway, in spite of the supposed "volcano".

    Influence of a West Antarctic mantle plume on ice sheet basal conditions

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Link to this page



The Consensus Project Website

THE ESCALATOR

(free to republish)


© Copyright 2019 John Cook
Home | Links | Translations | About Us | Privacy | Contact Us