Sentences with phrase «sea ice mass in»

Last time I checked sea ice mass in Antartica was decreasing.

Not exact matches

Female polar bears prowling springtime sea ice have extreme weight swings, some losing more than 10 percent of their body mass in just over a week.

Understanding sea level change in relation to the mass balance of Greenland's and Antarctica's ice sheets is at the heart of the CReSIS mission.

For example, Kangerdlugssuaq glacier has lost mass from melting and, in its thinner form, has less weight to speed the flow of its ice toward the sea.

As glaciologist Richard Alley of Pennsylvania State University notes: «The ice sheet is losing mass, this loss has increased over time, [and] it is not the dominant term in sea - level rise — but it matters.»

What they found, Hansen says, is that melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica could inject enough fresh water into the seas to slow the formation of two key water masses: the North Atlantic Deepwater and the Antarctic Bottom Water formations.

In addition to the atmosphere, models must also include other key earthly elements, such as the ocean, land masses and even sea ice.

To better understand and anticipate changes in sea level rise, scientists have sought to quantify how much snow falls on the ice sheet in any given year, and where, since snow is the primary source of the ice sheet's mass.

The data allowed them to calculate the redistribution of mass on Earth's surface due to the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and mountain glaciers, and the resulting rise in sea level.

Joughin's and Tulaczyk's paper, published in Science in 2002, documents an increase in ice mass for one region of the WAIS called the Ross Sea Sector.

Glaciologists say this is not the case: The Ross Sea Sector is gaining mass because one glacier, the Kamb Ice Stream, which periodically stops and starts, is currently in stop mode and therefore not dumping ice into the oceIce Stream, which periodically stops and starts, is currently in stop mode and therefore not dumping ice into the oceice into the ocean.

«The land ice in the Arctic and very likely in the Antarctic is losing mass and shrinking, and the sea ice in the Arctic is shrinking, all as expected in world warming from our CO2,» Alley said.

«By refining the spatial pattern of mass loss in the world's second largest — and most unstable — ice sheet, and learning how that pattern has evolved, we are steadily increasing our understanding of ice loss processes, which will lead to better - informed projections of sea level rise.»

Stafford and colleagues will continue their long - term data collection to document the inter-seasonal and inter-annual presence of vocal marine mammals in the Bering Strait by integrating oceanographic drivers — sea ice, temperature, current speed and direction, and water mass properties — with acoustic detections.

First of all, less sea ice is forming in the region, and secondly, oceanographic recordings from the continental shelf break confirm that the warm water masses are already moving closer and closer to the ice shelf in pulses,» says Dr Hartmut Hellmer, an oceanographer at the AWI and first author of the study.

The extent of the ice in the Arctic has always been very uncertain but, through this work, we show how the sea ice in the Arctic Ocean developed before all the land - based ice masses in the Northern Hemisphere were established,» Jochen Knies explains.

The reduction in the ice mass has contributed to global average sea - level rise of 25 millimeters.

Complementary analyses of the surface mass balance of Greenland (Tedesco et al, 2011) also show that 2010 was a record year for melt area extent... Extrapolating these melt rates forward to 2050, «the cumulative loss could raise sea level by 15 cm by 2050 ″ for a total of 32 cm (adding in 8 cm from glacial ice caps and 9 cm from thermal expansion)- a number very close to the best estimate of Vermeer & Rahmstorf (2009), derived by linking the observed rate of sea level rise to the observed warming.

Consistent with observed changes in surface temperature, there has been an almost worldwide reduction in glacier and small ice cap (not including Antarctica and Greenland) mass and extent in the 20th century; snow cover has decreased in many regions of the Northern Hemisphere; sea ice extents have decreased in the Arctic, particularly in spring and summer (Chapter 4); the oceans are warming; and sea level is rising (Chapter 5).

It is quite possible that we are well past half - way — maybe at 75 % in terms of loss of arctic sea ice mass.

Stephanie M. Downes, Riccardo Farneti, Petteri Uotila, Stephen M. Griffies, Simon J. Marsland, et al. (2015) An assessment of Southern Ocean water masses and sea ice during 1988 - 2007 in a suite of interannual CORE - II simulations, 94, 67 - 94, Ocean Modelling, doi: 10.1016 / j.ocemod.2015.07.022,

But the IPCC specifically excluded the mechanism able to produce the biggest amounts of water quickly - acceleration in the flow of ice from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the world's two major ice masses that would between them raise sea levels by about 70m if they completely melted.

Overall, ice shelves in the Amundsen sea sector lost about five times as much mass as they gained during the event.

The findings, published Monday in Nature Geoscience, reveal that the 1997 - 98 El Niño led to a substantial loss of mass from the bottom of the ice shelves in West Antarctica's Amundsen sea sector, even as the shelves appeared to grow about ten inches taller from additional snowfall.

Rates of sea - level rise calculated from tide gauge data tend to exceed bottom - up estimates derived from summing loss of ice mass, thermal expansion and changes in land storage.

That estimate was based in part on the fact that sea level is now rising 3.2 mm / yr (3.2 m / millennium)[57], an order of magnitude faster than the rate during the prior several thousand years, with rapid change of ice sheet mass balance over the past few decades [23] and Greenland and Antarctica now losing mass at accelerating rates [23]--[24].

Sea ice melt showed the greatest contribution to water masses in the Beaufort Sea and Canada Basin (fSIM up to 0.219) and comparatively low contributions in the Makarov Basin and Sever Spur areas (fSIM up to 0.061; Table 1, Figure 7).

Sea levels are effected by movement of land masses both upward and downward, changes in gravitational pulls on the water due to changes in ice masses.

Our modelled values are consistent with current rates of Antarctic ice loss and sea - level rise, and imply that accelerated mass loss from marine - based portions of Antarctic ice sheets may ensue when an increase in global mean air temperature of only 1.4 - 2.0 deg.

«suggesting that Arctic warming will continue to greatly exceed the global average over the coming century, with concomitant reductions in terrestrial ice masses and, consequently, an increasing rate of sea level rise.»

And this is just one element in the sea level rise — small ice caps are melting faster, thermal expansion will increase in line with ocean heat content changes and Antarctic ice sheets are also losing mass.

Our experiments show a clear threshold in the relationship between the rate of sea - level rise, and the rate of (sea - level contributing) ice - sheet mass loss.

Has realclimate ever done (or considered doing) an entry about the immense contribution that satellite measurements have made in the past two - three decades, in helping us to understand various components of the earth system (e.g., vegetation, ozone, ice sheet mass, water vapor content, temperature, sea level height, storms, aerosols, etc.)?

From recent instrumental observations alone we are therefore unable to predict whether mass loss from these ice sheets will vary linearly with changes in the rate of sea - level rise, or if a non-linear response is more likely.

However, the idea is simple, and I've talked about this much in many presentations this winter: Take the amount of ice you need to get rid of from Greenland to raise sea level 2 m in the next century, reduce it by your best estimate of the amount that would be removed by surface mass balance losses, and try to push the rest out of the aggregate cross-sectional area of Greenland's marine - based outlet glaciers.

8) Accelerated mass loss in Greenland and / or Antarctica, perhaps with another huge ice shelf breaking off, but in any case coupled with another measurable rise in the rate of sea level rise, 9) The Fifth Assessment Report (2012 - 2013) really spelling out what we face with no punches pulled.

So I had to back up the story of my trip to Alaska with satellite data on sea ice, and I had to justify my pictures of disappearing glaciers in the Andes with long - term records of mass balance of mountain glaciers.

I'll be posting more here soon on new research showing an expanding area in western Greenland where ice mass is being lost and what this may, and may not, portend for sea levels in this century.

IIRC, the limit on mass loss was attributed to the narrowness of passes in the mountains, but if the ice loss is behind the mountains as the ocean reaches beyond them, and mixes salt into the system with tides, then only the flushing of salt and icebergs via meltwater would limit the rate of melt in the (brand new) Greenland Sea.

Eric Rignot most recent work in 2008 supported a larger, accelerating contribution of Antarctica's ice mass balance to the rise in sea level.

John — your premise is incorrect; Arctic sea - ice is not a concentration of mass, and when it melts it doesn't redistribute around the globe (other of course than in the same way any other Arctic seawater redistributes).

Thus, whatever the contribution of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet to the huge (4 - 8 m) rise in sea level of the Eemian, it occurred under very strong temperature forcing.

That typically occurs in ice - sheet model simulations that involve more than about 2 m of sea - level - equivalent mass loss.

The findings reinforce suggestions that strong positive ice — temperature feedbacks have emerged in the Arctic15, increasing the chances of further rapid warming and sea ice loss, and will probably affect polar ecosystems, ice - sheet mass balance and human activities in the Arctic...» *** This is the heart of polar amplification and has very little to do with your stated defintion of amplifying the effects of warming going on at lower latitudes.

In recent years, Greenland's ice has been melting more and flowing faster into the sea — a record amount of ice melted from the frozen mass this summer, according to recently released data — and Earth's rising temperatures are suspected to be the main culprit.

Contrary to what the vast majority of «liberal» and «conservative» members of the public think, climate scientists do not believe sea levels will rise if the north pole ice cap melts (unlike the south pole ice cap, which sits atop a land mass, the north pole «ice cap» is already floating in the sea, a point that various «climate science literacy» guides issued by scientific bodies like NASA and NOAA emphasize).

When ice shelves already largely in the water break off from the continental ice mass, this does not have much direct effect on sea level per se.

It has come to the point that if we continue losing mass in those areas, the loss can generate a self - reinforcing feedback whereby we will be losing more and more ice, ultimately raising sea levels by tens of feet.»

A rise in global mean sea level of between 0.09 and 0.88 metres by 2100 has been projected, mainly due to the thermal expansion of sea water and loss of mass from ice caps and glaciers».

If all of the currently attainable carbon resources [estimated to be between 8500 and 13.600 GtC (4)-RSB- were burned, the Antarctic Ice Sheet would lose most of its mass, raising global sea level by more than 50 m. For the 125 GtC as well as the 500, 800, 2500, and 5000 GtC scenarios, the ice - covered area is depicted in white (ice - free bedrock in browIce Sheet would lose most of its mass, raising global sea level by more than 50 m. For the 125 GtC as well as the 500, 800, 2500, and 5000 GtC scenarios, the ice - covered area is depicted in white (ice - free bedrock in browice - covered area is depicted in white (ice - free bedrock in browice - free bedrock in brown).