Sentences with phrase «with ice mass loss»

Not exact matches

The scientists reported that northeast Greenland was stable — with a zero ice mass loss — until about 2003, when summer temperatures spiked.

This, coupled with P5's orbit and its very small size, makes it very unlikely that its mass loss would be due to ice sublimation.

Despite being trumpeted in certain circles as meaning that there's really nothing to worry about regarding the Greenland ice sheet, the authors made a point of noting (although not in this press release) that an additional source of mass loss needs to be identified in order to reconcile their results with the GRACE data (which do not show a reduction in mass loss for the same period).

Gladstone et al. (2012) also investigated the future of PIG, and they too found ongoing ice mass loss to be likely under a «business as usual scenario» (IPCC), with full collapse of the main trunk of PIG during the 22nd century still a possibility.

Joughin et al. (2010) applied a numerical ice sheet model to predicting the future of PIG, their model suggested ongoing loss of ice mass from PIG, with a maximum rate of global sea level rise of 2.7 cm per century.

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.

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.

Just thinking out loud (and I only know enough to be dangerous;), but with IR radiation mapping during winter, one might be able to infer a sub-surface temperature profile and compare that with mass loss and ice sheet thickness.

The lower trend found by our study is consistent with the median projected sums of thermal expansion and glacier mass loss, implying that no net contribution from polar ice sheets is needed over 1901 - 1990.

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.

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.

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.

Although that's really all that needs be said, I should add that jetfuel is trying to compare cumulative year - over-year land ice mass loss in Antarctica with (cyclical) seasonal river / lake ice volume gain in Canada - and ignoring the inevitable melt - away of the latter.

If both Greenland and West Antarctica shed the entirety of their ice burden, global sea levels would rise by 12 to 14 m. Although these icecaps would not disintegrate within a century, the loss of even a third of their mass — quite plausible if the rate of polar ice loss continues to double each decade — would force up the oceans by at least 4 m, with disastrous socioeconomic and environmental consequences.

In the context of loss of permafrost and ice mass, delegates discussed whether to refer to changes as «significant,» with a statistical meaning, or «considerable,» to put numbers in the right context.

-- The third, being the observed destabilization of the geosphere due to both the pace of terrestrial ice loss and relatively sudden and uneven climatic redistribution of the oceans» mass, with a consequent rise in seismic events and in volcanoes» cooling sulphate emissions, which have (according to Prof. McGuire, adviser to Munich Re on vulcanism risks) accelerated slowly on a 1.25 % / yr trend over the last 30 years.

When doing this with sea level data, as with OHC, as with tropospheric sensible heat, as with glacial ice mass loss, we are seeing a background, longer - term change that is non-linear, and for several decades now, accelerating.

The principal processes affecting the mass balance and dynamics of the ice sheets are ice mass input from snowfall with losses from sublimation and drifting.

Present uncertainties of ice shelf mass loss are large, however, with estimates of their contribution to sea level rise ranging from a few centimeters to over one meter.

Each circular graph is proportional in area to the total ice mass loss measured from each ice shelf, in gigatons per year, with the proportion of ice lost due to the calving of icebergs denoted by hatched lines and the proportion due to basal melting denoted in black.

Evidence is also strong that Alaska ice mass loss contributes to global sea level rise, 65 with latest results permitting quantitative evaluation of losses globally.66

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).

What the report says about Alaskan glaciers and climate change: The collective ice mass of all Arctic glaciers has decreased every year since 1984, with significant losses in Alaska.

What Jimmy D also ignores is that ice mass loss can also be due to: a) reduced precipitation b) reduced albedo due to reduced cloudiness (goes together with reduced precipitation) c) reduced albedo due to soot and / or volcanic ash, both of which have been seen in the last five years d) other local phenomena

To say nothing of the warming trends also noticed in, for example: * ocean heat content * wasting glaciers * Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheet mass loss * sea level rise due to all of the above * sea surface temperatures * borehole temperatures * troposphere warming (with stratosphere cooling) * Arctic sea ice reductions in volume and extent * permafrost thawing * ecosystem shifts involving plants, animals and insects

«As a result, the loss of glacier mass worldwide, along with the corresponding release of carbon, will affect high latitude marine ecosystems, particularly those surrounding the major ice sheets that now receive fairly limited land - to - ocean fluxes of carbon.»

Christopher A. Shuman Research Scientist, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Specialties: Ice elevation changes and glacier mass losses using altimetry in combination with other remote sensing in the Antarctica Peninsula, the accuracy of early ICESat - 1 data, composite temperature records derived from AWS passive microwave data from SMMR and SSM / I and IR data from AVHRR

We use our acceleration estimates to back calculate to a time of zero velocity, which coincides with the initiation of ice loss in Iceland from ice mass balance calculations and Arctic warming trends.

As explained in the press release, the scientists began with the measure of sea level rise between 2005 and 2013, then deducted the amount of rise due to meltwater (e.g., melting ice sheets and loss of glacier mass worldwide) and then the amount of rise due to the expansion of water from the warming in the upper portion of the world's oceans (which scientists have good data on).

Greenland ice sheet mass balance: distribution of increased mass loss with climatic warming: 2003 — 07 versus 1992 — 2002

Current total ice - loss in Greenland is running at an estimated 200 Gte / yr and Antarctica at 150 Gte / yr (with ice mass gain in the east and loss in the west — with some estimates of a net gain)-- at that rate of 1mm / yr, by 2100 the global ice - loss would raise sea level by a little over 3 inches.

Current models suggest ice mass losses increase with temperature more rapidly than gains due to increased precipitation and that the surface mass balance becomes negative (net ice loss) at a global average warming (relative to pre-industrial values) in excess of 1.9 to 4.6 °C.

Thirteen years of GRACE data provide an excellent picture of the current mass changes of Greenland and Antarctica, with mass loss in the GRACE period 2002 - 15 amounting to 265 ± 25 GT / yr for Greenland (including peripheral ice caps), and 95 ± 50 GT / year for Antarctica, corresponding to 0.72 mm / year and 0.26 mm / year average global sea level change.

While the loss of glacier mass has continued for the past few decades with a slight increase in recent years, the rate of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet has dramatically increased in the past decade and continues to increase.

We argue that ice sheets in contact with the ocean are vulnerable to non-linear disintegration in response to ocean warming, and we posit that ice sheet mass loss can be approximated by a doubling time up to sea level rise of at least several meters.

Despite being trumpeted in certain circles as meaning that there's really nothing to worry about regarding the Greenland ice sheet, the authors made a point of noting (although not in this press release) that an additional source of mass loss needs to be identified in order to reconcile their results with the GRACE data (which do not show a reduction in mass loss for the same period).