New study: Less sea rise expected from possible Antarctic melt
By Moises Velasquez-Manoff | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor/ May 14, 2009 edition
The ice sheet sitting atop Antarctica is so vast, up to 3 miles (5 km) thick in some places, that it pushes earth’s crust thousands of feet down. If all that ice melted, it would raise sea levels globally by an estimated 230 feet (70 meters).
No one thinks that Antarctica will thaw completely anytime soon, of course, but scientists are increasingly worried by changes observed in just one area: the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS).
Until recently, scientists estimated that if the WAIS melted, sea levels worldwide would rise by some 16 feet. Now, using more refined data, a new study in the May 15 issue of the journal Science revises that number down to an average 11-foot sea level rise.
For decades, scientists have observed that while the Antarctica’s interior appears to have cooled, the outer regions — specifically the Antarctic Peninsula — have warmed. They attribute the changes to stronger circumpolar winds — and the fiercer winds, ultimately, to human impact on weather.
Shifting wildlife seems to corroborate the observed changes. Colder-climate penguins have retreated southward on the peninsula; species adapted to relatively warmer climes have advanced. Concentrations of clear, cold water-loving phytoplankton, the basis of the Antarctic food chain, have also pushed Poleward.
In January, scientists writing in Science argued that the warming extended beyond just the peninsula, and included the WAIS. That has alarming implications, they say. The WAIS rests on bedrock that’s partly below sea level. As a result, scientists think that it’s sensitive to changes in ocean temperature, and maybe prone to rapid melting.
Indeed, two studies reported in Nature in March conclude that the ice sheet has melted (and reformed) in the past relatively quickly. Several times between 3 and 5 million years ago, when temperatures were around 3 degrees C (5.4 degrees F.) higher than today and atmospheric CO2 was at 400 ppm, just above where we are now, the WAIS was a shallow sea.
What does this mean for the two-thirds of humanity inhabiting coastal areas?
Previously, scientists estimated how much the WAIS would contribute to global sea level rise by taking the total amount of water frozen as ice and spreading it around the globe evenly. That meant a 16-foot sea level rise worldwide.
But a study published earlier this year in the Science complicated that picture. The older calculations hadn’t included the following important factors, wrote the authors:
1. The WAIS is so massive that it exerts a gravitational pull on the surrounding water. If it disappears, so does that pull. Nearby water, released from the gravity, will flow away. Regions farther away — like the Northern Hemisphere — will see an influx. The subsequent sea level rise there would be greater than what one might think by evenly spreading the WAIS’s meltwater around the globe.
2. If the glacier disappears, the Earth’s crust, now depressed, will bounce back — what scientists call “isostatic rebound.” The rising bedrock would counteract sea level rise in the immediate region, and also push water elsewhere.
3. Finally, the WAIS’s disappearance could change the location of Earth’s rotational axis by some 500 meters (1600 feet). That, in turn, affects how and where water accumulates in the world’s oceans.
All in all, the authors estimated that some parts of the world would experience sea-level rises 25 percent greater than previous estimates suggested. Rather than a 16-foot increase, for example, Washington, D.C., might find its seas 21 feet higher.
But the new study says that sea level rise actually will be much lower. The authors of this study also account for gravity, centrifugal force, and planetary elasticity. But they use more refined information on how much of the WAIS, exactly, is prone to melting.
“There are parts of the ice sheet which remain grounded and look relatively stable,” says Jonathan Bamber, a professor of physical geography at England’s University of Bristol and lead author on the study. “We’re saying that about one-third looks like it survives, or that it’s not vulnerable to this instability.”
If what can melt does, seas will rise 11 feet on average, not 16, they say. But as in the previous study, the authors find that the east and west coasts of North America will see some of the greatest increases — perhaps 13 feet.
Editor’s note: Monitor science writer Pete Spotts will be blogging on this topic later today and when that’s posted, we will give the URL here. [It’s up now; click here.] He will have some interesting background on this information. Also he will write about some additional work on rising seas caused by melting ice that coming up for publication, which will be specific to the northeastern United States. “Turns out that if Greenland melts,” Pete says, “the rise here [in the Northeast] is likely to be higher than average because of changes all that freshwater would bring to ocean circulation.”
( More stories )
Comments
2. steve | 05.14.09
I believe this flood is going to recur as soon as my Ark is finished :)
Seriously, the earth is so big, we forget how interdependent its systems are.
The study above for instance, didnt address the effect of this shifted water on water currents and weather patterns. Colder water shifted south means means colder, heavier water sinks, it’s salinity may be vastly different too, which impacts how much oxygen it may carry and the food sources that live inside.
This means that fish we would eat from the region are now shifted an additional 200 miles offshore (with fuel costs rising..), or are nonexistent as their food sources disappear.
Hurricanes and weather patterns that bring moisture (rainy season water to your aquifer and so on) fall offshore, or dont fall at all.
Are we going to “die from Global Warming?” not so much - It’s not like we have to turn our A/C units up extra high, we are more likely to die when regional wars over resources escalate between nuclear powers.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/2229977.cms
Check that out
3. bmessmer@aapt.net.au | 05.15.09
While these prognostications on the fate of the west antarctic ice sheet make some sense, the stated causes of the ice melt ignores one important fact; that is that the measured warming of the western ice sheet is largely (if not totally) due to subterranean volcanic activity in this area. Such volcanic activity causes significant warming of the rocks of the earth’s crust beneath the ice sheet. This, in turn, causes a melt of the base of the ice sheet which reduces friction of the ice on the underlying rock and causes an increase in glacier movement towards the coast.
Thus, ice sheet movement and collapse is unrelated to any atmospheric factors, such as CO2, and there is no possible human control over it.
In this connection, it is worth remembering that all the hullabaloo about the sea ice melt about the Larsen shelf is misdirected as the melt is likewise beyond human control. It does not affect sea levels anyway.
4. Todd | 05.15.09
I’m no scientist, but I also question the idea that the ice sheet is “pulling” on the water near it. Certainly, sufficiently large objects have gravitational pull. But would the pull of the iceberg surpass that of the earth itself? Seems unlikely, but what do I know?
5. Thomas Goss | 05.15.09
Amazing the junk one can find at this CSM site. These people must stay up nights dreaming up this dribble. The ocean will rise 16 ft…..no, 11 ft…..no, 70 feet. This whole article is so filled with contradictions and pseudo-science that it is a waste of time to even try to comprehend it.
6. David in Davis | 05.15.09
Oh please, another doomsday, worst case, scare-mongering scenario from the climate modelers. Get away from your computers, and do some real science. At least Svensmark has demonstrated by actual laboratory experiment, a natural amplifying physical phenomenon which supports his theory and supports the empirical evidence for the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation and thereby climate. What do the modelers have? -an assumed but un-demonstrated positive feedback mechanism by CO2 on water vapor. Without that assumption in their models, the physical heat-trapping effect of CO2 fails to explain the warming of the late 20th century. None of the that doomsday stuff is gonna happen. Svensmark will (eventually) get the Nobel Prize in Physics.
7. Jill | 05.16.09
So if this explains a little about the Antarctic melt does anyone know the projections of sea level rise if you add Arctic melt and any other golbal glacial melting?
8. John Owens | 05.16.09
Other studies show that the ice at both polar regions is increasing. Either use your search engine or read the articles on http://www.wattsupwiththat.com
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
3. Lots of Ink: A new estimate cuts in half the sea level rise for a collapse of West Antarctic ice | Science News | 05.15.09
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.





1. Lawrence Blakeslee | 05.14.09
So when in time is this inundation going to occur? lawrence b may 14, 2009