Arguments
Why do glaciers lose ice?
The skeptic argument...
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)
What the science says...
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,
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
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 (
We should all now at least remotely understand that mass balance changes in
Last updated on 14 July 2010 by robert way.
See Is Antarctica losing or gaining ice?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Part-Three-Response-to-Goddard.html
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html
All the other numbers in table 10.7 are positive.
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:
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:
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
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.
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
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