Antarctic Ice Loss Jumps 75% in One Year!

The global warming Deniers (and the rest of us) just can't catch a break: Vast areas of the Antarctic ice sheet -- which has 10 times as much ice as Greenland -- is losing mass much faster than anyone expected. And the rate of ice loss has quickened in the last decade. In fact, 2007's ice loss was 75% higher than 2006's.

Jeez, it's almost like ... I don't know ... the whole friggin' planet is melting, and we are to blame! If only we had a group of scientists who would, like, report regularly on the impending catastrophe and explain to us how to avoid it....

As the Washington Post reports:

"Without doubt, Antarctica as a whole is now losing ice yearly, and each year it's losing more," said Eric Rignot, lead author of a paper published online in the journal Nature Geoscience.

Note to the Washington Post -- one of the many, many reasons traditional media are losing eyeballs to the blogosphere is that your embedded hyperlinks go bizarre places, rather than to, say, the study you are citing!

Here is the link to Nature's story on the article (note to Nature -- uhh, you folks could include a link to the actual study, too). And here, finally, is the link to the article, "Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling" by Eric Rignot et al. A subscription is required for the whole article, but the abstract is available:

Large uncertainties remain in the current and future contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica. Climate warming may increase snowfall in the continent's interior, but enhance glacier discharge at the coast where warmer air and ocean temperatures erode the buttressing ice shelves. Here, we use satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations from 1992 to 2006 covering 85% of Antarctica's coastline to estimate the total mass flux into the ocean. We compare the mass fluxes from large drainage basin units with interior snow accumulation calculated from a regional atmospheric climate model for 1980 to 2004. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 4 Gt yr^-1. In West Antarctica, widespread losses along the Bellingshausen and Amundsen seas increased the ice sheet loss by 59% in 10 years to reach 132 Gt yr^-1 in 2006. In the Peninsula, losses increased by 140% to reach 60 Gt yr^-1 in 2006. Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration. Changes in glacier flow therefore have a significant, if not dominant impact on ice sheet mass balance.

Just for the record, the loss of Greenland's ice sheet by itself could raise sea levels 20 feet. The West Antarctic ice sheet would add another 20 feet. How fast could it all happen? Pretty darn fast, just going by the last interglacial.

Anybody out there who still believes business-as-usual energy use won't result in multi-multi-meter sea level?

The time to act is now. If not sooner.

Comments

[getoffmedz]

"There are too many fucking people on this ball!"

quote by getoffmedz - copyright 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.

[GnitenGoodLk]

If you read my profile, or go to the previous page, you will see I am not one of the head-in-the-sand people. I am depressingly aware of the urgency of this. Many people are. The #1 problem is we do not live in a preventative society. We live in a reactionary society. Until, and unless, there is massive global disruption and loss of life, no one will do anything. And rest assured, I know it's coming and it's going to be a hell of alot sooner than anyone predicted. I expect to see this catastrophe in my generation.

Of course, there is a plan in place at our government level, but it does not include the population. It is, as in the Iraq war, not about saving the planet or others, but saving a limited few. We are in a global game of chicken, and I imagine, the lack of action is due to our government hoping other countries are just as devastated, if not more. Then, action will happen. After the fact.

Official global policy (criminal) has been publicized-we will not adopt the Kyoto Protocol, or even acknowledge the real changes that need to be made because to do so would mean no longer being an economic super-power. Our economy would collapse, BEFORE other countries would do it. And that, is something that takes precedence over humanity. No country will do so.

This does not bode well for humanity. We are rolling the dice amd hoping we come out on top when it happens. Best to lull everyone back into sleep & denial because it is inevitable.

We are our own worst enemy, and if our descendants cannot adapt to the coming eco-catastrophe, we, of this generation, will be responsible, because we knew, and chose power over extinction.

[RTIII]

OHMYGOD,
there are SO MANY uninformed voices on the forum today on this topic!

Background: I am a scientist involved in earth science research for over 14 years. My specialty is interdisciplinary research and as such I occasionally work with "the ice guys", as we affectionately call them. I want to help inform this dialog a little by sharing some of a particular experience I found profoundly memorable.

"In living memory," by luck, I happened to be visiting a colleague at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, we finished early, and headed over to see the semiannual Ice Research meeting. This meeting was very well attended by the major ice researchers in the world - and a lot of the minor ones. The room was packed. The official agenda was to discuss next year's research goals - what areas did they want funded, what might they cost, etc. However, the MC changed our agenda on the spot as we learned that one researcher had the latest 6 months of data in a nearly seven year data-set which recorded that in the preceding 6 months the Ross Ice Shelf had moved more than in all of the preceding 6 years, and the pace appeared to be increasing - and that's what we learned _in_the_introduction!_

(continued)

[Stevelagain]

We have very reputable scientists who study the Antarctic who say that it's simply outrageous to believe that mans activity over the last few decades could affect arctic ice melt. That Ice Sheets simply DO NOT MELT in response to fluctuations in average global temperatures.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080115115743.aspx

[MikeDu]

Want the doubters on your side? Tell them its going to effect their corporate bottom line. How many of the Texas oil refineries they have shares in are going to find themselves standing in 6 inches of saltwater? How many coastal interstate highways are going to be cut by flooding or the ground eroding beneath them? Global warming = bad for your bank account.

[Stevelagain]

Everyone here knows that sea ice does NOT raise the level of the ocean when it melts, right? It's already floating in the water. It's melting does not raise ocean levels.

Is the Antarctica ice still thickening? I remember seeing a picture of power transmission lines built down there. They were over 100 feet tall when built. And all but the top 30 feet or so is now buried in FRESH ice. You have to take into account how much thickening is going on when determining the overall amount of ice lost or gained.

We are all aware now of Al Gores mistake in calling a 2.5inch sea rise 20 feet because they "accidentally" messed up with some decimal points? "Inconvenient Truths" or CONVENIENT EXAGGERATIONS?

I'm not looking for the ocean to be in my back yard any time soon.

Pardon my intrusion here. I had no intention of posting but so often information is overlooked, misinterpreted, and deliberately left out.

[lungfish]

Don't worry, the Right Wing Christian Nutjobs have it all figured out. When the last fish suffocates and the last tree is felled for toilet paper nobody has to worry because Christ will return and everything will be peachy for them. They are hoping for these disasters and have no desire to do anything but coddle their ignorance of science and knowledge with smug self-rightousness.

[seawolf77]

Everyone knwos the true cause of global warming, it is Bill Clinton.

[TimmySlagle]

From the Article:

"In 2006 alone, Antarctica lost nearly 200 billion tonnes of ice, researchers say " the equivalent of a global sea level rise of more than half a millimetre"

Wow. So if the present trend continues, for the next thousand years, the ocean will rise almost half a meter! That's almost NINETEEN INCHES!

And only a THOUSAND YEARS to prepare for it?

we're DOOMED!

PS: I still don't understand where Mr. Romm gets that that "20 feet" statistic both he and Al Gore seem to be so fond of.

[dolphy]

People, let me remind all of us; The most dramatic result of global warming is the planet Venus!

[kingcityguru]

Last I checked, warm is better than cold when it comes to life as the greatest concentration of life on earth is at the equator. Of course, if you really believe that global warming is a problem and that it is a problem created by CO2 and that it is a CO2 related problem created by humans then surely you must be in favor of nuclear energy for the generation of electricity as it is pollution and CO2 free. No? I guess it really is not as big a problem as you state.

[dolphy]

Sciguy,

Read, my fellow human. This article was about the ANTARCTIC. There's a difference. One is at the "top" of the planet and the other is at the "bottom."
Also, you've either been misled or you don't understand the data in front of you. The discussion about climate change isn't about how many Greenland ice sheets it would take to fill the current ocean areas on the planet. The oceans are already full. The discussion is about the *increase* in liquid water.
I checked the link you posted. The most important thing that you've missed is that the site's "front page" shows lots of pictures, but they're all recent. Climate change is really about the change over many decades, not over 1 day or one month. It is meaningful to look at changes over as little as 1 year, but data over a 1-month span has to be added to many other data to have meaning.
If you look at a longer-term picture from the site you linked to, you'll see that there is a much smaller area of the thicker ice over the Northern Hemisphere:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh
Also, although there is a seasonal variation in sea ice area, there is a discrepancy over the last 20 years - it's decreasing:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Next time, try reading scientific data from many places, and "combining" the data to get a good long-term picture. If you don't understand the data in front of you, please ask someone.

Thanks for clearing up the obvious. Please look at the data for the last 100 years and see the correlation between CO2 and AVE TEMP.

[niikeb]

Funny thing is I read a month ago antarctic ice is at a level not seen in decades. Its to politicized to ever figure out if it is or isn't. If it is its way beyond our control.

[SirReal1]

In a statement, made by "W", he said "The assessment provided by NASA, The NAS, and ASA, and other scientist's who have spent most of their lives researching this stuff, DOES NOT reflect MY VIEWS on this issue."

He went on to disclose that he had dedicated about 15 minutes this afternoon to researching and contemplating the "supposed threat of Global Warming" and decidered that it was negligible.

A recent AP/Ipsos poll showed that his supporters were much relieved by the (P)residents statement.

[Iimbalayo]

"this is the end my friend" as George Carlton says "we are just circling the drain" !