(That is, if we simply held global mean temperature constant by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, I have no idea whether that would be enough to halt Antarctic ice loss — probably not, in fact almost certainly not, though it would mean
less ice sheet loss than would occur if we didn't do it.»
Not exact matches
This melt is the primary control on Antarctic
ice -
sheet loss, as the thinner
ice shelves are
less able to buttress
ice in the interior, leading to faster
ice flow.
Combined climate /
ice sheet model estimates in which the Greenland surface temperature was as high during the Eemian as indicated by the NEEM
ice core record suggest that
loss of
less than about 1 m sea level equivalent is very unlikely (e.g. Robinson et al. (2011).
Data for the modern rate of annual
ice sheet mass changes indicate an accelerating rate of mass
loss consistent with a mass
loss doubling time of a decade or
less (Fig. 10).
Researchers at the University of Texas, Austin, report that increased melting of the Greenland
ice sheet — and to a
lesser degree,
ice loss in other parts of the globe — helped to shift the North Pole several centimeters east each year since 2005.
Second, and
less important but still rather spectacular, was the melting of virtually every square inch of the surface of this
ice sheet over a short period of a few days during the hottest part of the summer, a phenomenon observed every few hundred years but nevertheless an ominous event considering that it happened just as the aforementioned record
ice mass
loss was being observed and measured.
While Greenland's
ice loss is astonishing, on the other side of the globe, parts of Antarctica's vast
ice sheet may be even
less stable.