CR
Cryospheric Sciences

ice sheet

Ice-hot news: The IPCC Special Report on the Oceans and the Cryosphere under Climate Change

Ice-hot news: The IPCC Special Report on the Oceans and the Cryosphere under Climate Change

You have probably heard the name “Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” mentioned frequently over the last few years. The IPCC is the United Nations body for assessing science related to climate change and it publishes global assessment reports on this topic every 5 to 10 years. Due to the current urgency of the global climate crisis and the need for more information by decision makers, the IPCC decided to publish several smaller more “special” reports between its fifth (published in 2013/2014) and sixth (planned for 2021/2022) assessment reports. The Special Report on the Oceans and the Cryosphere in a changing Climate (short “SROCC”) was published about a month ago. In this blog post, we will give you an overview of the take-home messages about the fate of the  cryospheric elements of our planet – those parts which are frozen!


Why is there a special report about ocean and cryosphere?

Discussions about global warming are often centered around changes in air temperature and changes in places where people live. The cryosphere and the ocean are, by contrast, remote areas without dense human population. However, climate change has a high impact on the cryosphere and oceans and this, in turn, has an effect on places where people live, one prominent example of this being land loss due to sea-level rise. Less talked about but equally impactful, is thawing permafrost, leading to high carbon release to the atmosphere, and melting Arctic sea-ice cover, enhancing Arctic Amplification, which can influence climate in mid-latitudes and globally.

The Special Report on Oceans and the Cryosphere in a changing Climate (SROCC) has the aim of highlighting the links between oceans, cryosphere and sea-level rise to improve policy makers’ understanding of these key elements and of the interdependencies between them (see Fig. 2). This is particularly critical at present, as the 25th Conference of Parties (COP25), organized by the United Nations Climate Change Convention, will be happening in around one month’s time in Santiago de Chile.

Fig. 2: Summary of the changes discussed in the IPCC Special report on the Oceans (white circles) and the Cryosphere (grey circles) under Climate Change [Credit: Box 1, Figure 1 in SROCC].

The Special Report is based on peer-reviewed literature from natural sciences, social sciences and humanities. It represents the most current scientific view on the oceans and the cryosphere. But what exactly are the conclusions of this report and why is it important? This post will guide you through the key points relevant to the cryosphere: permafrost, snow cover, glaciers and ice sheers, and sea ice!

Info box: What is an RCP scenario?

In IPCC reports, the projections for the future climate evolution are conducted using scenarios for the future greenhouse gas emissions. As we do not know how our economy, agriculture, and greenhouse gas emissions will evolve in the future, scientists have developed so-called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP). Each RCP represents one of several possible futures in economic and agricultural development, resulting in different evolutions in atmospheric greenhouse gases. The higher the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, the more of the heat radiated to space by the Earth’s surface is trapped, leading to a warming of the atmosphere. RCP2.6 represents a future where we radically cut greenhouse gas emissions after a peak in 2020,  RCP4.5 a scenario, where we cut emissions after a peak in 2040, and RCP8.5 represents a scenario in which greenhouse gas levels continue to rise.

Permafrost

Permafrost – ground, which is soil or rock frozen for more than two years in a row – contains one third of global near-surface carbon stocks, and thawing of parts of the permafrost-affected area can render this carbon more available for microorganisms, thus causing emissions of stored carbon as the greenhouse gases CO2 and CH4. This additional source of greenhouse gases could cause more surface warming, thus more permafrost thaw, thus more warming and so on (Mu et al., 2017; Sun et al., 2018a).

Because ice is solid, but water drains away, permafrost thaw can cause changes in the surface (subsidence) in Northern land areas, thus damaging infrastructure and buildings. Thaw can further cause landslides or increase rockfall rates, thus risking mountain accidents and the safety of local communities (PERMOS, 2016).

The IPCC reports that permafrost temperatures have increased by 0.29°C ± 0.12°C from 2007 to 2016 on average for polar and high mountain areas. Sparse long-term data series in heterogeneous alpine environments is the largest challenge faced when quantifying temperature trends in alpine permafrost, which makes up about 28 % of global permafrost, but estimates show a 0.19°C ± 0.05 °C warming per decade in alpine permafrost on average.

Arctic long time series are sparse, but estimates show that from 2007 to 2016, the coldest permafrost areas have warmed by 0.39 °C ± 0.15 °C, whereas the ‘warmer’ permafrost close to thaw has warmed on average by 0.2 °C ± 0.10 °C – more energy has been used for melting of ice.

Fig. 3: Left: Trend in annual average temperatures in high-mountain regions divided into geographical regions and ground material [Credit: Figure 2.5 in the SROCC. Right: Projections for global permafrost area following emission scenarios RCP 2.6, RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 [Credit: Figure 3.10 in the SROCC].

The Special Report concludes that the frequency and intensity of wildfires has increased, removing the organic topsoil and degrading permafrost faster than historically. Read more about fire in the Arctic in this post.

The amount of projected permafrost thaw by 2100 is directly related to the RCP scenario followed by humanity (see explanatory box on RCPs). Overall, permafrost occurrence is projected to be reduced by 8 to 40% for the low-emission scenario RCP 2.6 and 49 to 89 % for the high-emission scenario RCP8.5. While the Arctic permafrost within the first three meters of the surface is projected to have decreased by 2 to 66 % in RCP2.6 and by 30 to 99 % in RCP8.5, the permafrost area of the Tibetan plateau is projected to decrease by 22 % in 2100 under RCP2.6 by 64 % in RCP8.5. In conclusion, if we follow the high-emission scenario RCP8.5, tens to hundreds of gigatons of carbon will be released to the atmosphere by 2100.

The reason for the large intervals of projections are mainly that “translating” air temperature to a ground temperature, hence permafrost presence or absence, is a difficult task due to the impact of surface properties, such as snow depth and vegetation, and ground properties, such as ground ice and carbon content, on energy propagation into and out of the soil surface. IPCC projections are based on a comparison of many models for a more robust estimate – and they simulate precipitation and vegetation patterns differently, thus impacting the simulated permafrost area.

For communities in permafrost regions, for whom 70 % of local infrastructure will be at risk of damage due to permafrost thaw by 2050, short- and long term adaptation and mitigation measures need to complement each other. Measures need to be developed with the use of scientific and local knowledge from Northern communities, and local ecosystem monitoring can be a key data source for this.

You can find full details about permafrost changes in the SROCC Section 2.2.4 and 3.4.

Snow cover

Snow cover is a critical element of the cryosphere, firstly because it absorbs surface runoff from glacier and ice sheet surfaces, and secondly because it has a high albedo, meaning that it reflects more incoming solar radiation than the darker surfaces they cover, such as ground, trees, and ice. Snow covers the terrestrial Arctic (north of 60 ºN) for up to nine months each year, and influences the surface energy budget (through its reflectivity), freshwater budget (through water storage and release), ground thermal regime (through insulation) and ecosystem interactions.

Since the beginning of the satellite era in 1981, spring snow cover extent has declined by over 13% per decade. Snow cover duration has also declined, both in spring (by up to 3.9 days per decade in certain regions) and autumn (by up to 1.4 days per decade in certain regions). Maximum snow depth has been declining, though trends are uncertain because of sparse observations and large spatial variability. These reductions are very likely driven by surface temperature rise in the Arctic. Warming-induced snow cover reduction creates a self-reinforcing cycle where the surface is darker than when it is snow covered and therefore reflects less incoming solar radiation, leading to a warmer surface and even more melting.

Fig. 4: Observed changes in June snow cover extent anomalies, and projected change in June snow cover under low (RCP2.6, blue), medium (RCP4.5) and high (RCP8.5) greenhouse gas emissions scenarios [Credit: Figure 3.10 in the SROCC]

Arctic snow cover duration is projected to decrease (later autumn onset in and earlier spring melting), as a result of continued Arctic-wide warming. However, trends differ between model scenarios. For example, Arctic snow cover duration stabilizes by the end of the century under RCP4.5, whereas under RCP8.5 it declines to -25% (compared to the period 1986 – 2005). In Greenland, snow cover is projected to retreat to higher, flatter areas of the ice sheet. The rate at which this could occur is currently not well reproduced in climate models, mostly due to uncertainty in the way snow processes are included in these models.

Snow cover reductions are already being felt negatively in the Arctic, especially by communities reliant on snow cover for food sources, drinking water, and livelihoods, such as reindeer herding.

You can find full details of the estimates and predictions for ice sheets in SROCC, section 3.4 and in FAQ 3.1.

Sea ice

Sea ice is frozen sea water and displaces as much water as is produced when it melts. Melting sea ice therefore does not play a role for sea-level rise. It is, however, an important element for climate as it reflects large amounts of incoming sunlight back to space (similar to snow); it provides habitat for bacteria, plants and animals below, in, and above the ice; and it influences weather in mid-latitudes, the region between roughly 30 and 60 degrees of latitude, home to over 50% of the human population.

In the context of climate change, sea ice is also an especially good element of the cryosphere  to illustrate the effects of global warming. The Arctic September sea-ice area is directly linked to cumulative CO2 emissions (see this previous post) and therefore changes in sea ice directly reflect, in a very visible way, the path of climate change.

Fig. 5: Observed and modelled historical changes in the Arctic September sea ice extent since 1950 and projected future changes under low (RCP2.6, blue) and high (RCP8.5, red) greenhouse gas emissions scenarios [Credit: Figure SPM1 in the SROCC].

The sea-ice review in SROCC is similar to the Special Report on 1.5°C published end of 2018 (see this previous post). Arctic sea-ice loss was observed in both area and thickness in the past decades and is projected to continue through mid-century. The rate of the loss depends on the amount of warming. In the Antarctic, there is low confidence in the projected sea-ice evolution.

More details about the sea-ice evolution under climate change can be found in Section 3.2 of SROCC.

Polar ice sheets and glaciers

The two polar ice sheets and the world’s glaciers are a fundamental element of the world’s cryosphere. Glaciers and ice sheets cover about 10% of the Earth’s surface and contain around 70% of the world’s fresh water. They regulate the global climate system by interacting with the ocean and atmosphere and provide valuable fresh water resources to much of our planet.

The overwhelming consensus is that the polar regions are losing ice, and that the rate of ice loss has increased. In Greenland, ice loss is occurring through a combination of enhanced surface melting and runoff, and increasing dynamic thinning (ice loss as a result of accelerated ice flow). Greenland has lost around 247 Gt of ice every year between 2012 and 2016. In Antarctica, incursion of warm ocean waters is driving rapid, accelerating ice loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. The mass loss signal from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (-122 ± 10 Gt yr -1 from 2003 – 2013) is dominated by the increasing ice loss from outlet glaciers in the Amundsen Sea Embayment. On the Antarctic Peninsula, the majority of marine-terminating outlet glaciers are retreating. The pattern of change on the East Antarctic Ice Sheet is more ambiguous and complex, with regional gains and losses and no clear overall mass trend. Increased surface melt intensity and duration on both ice sheets has led to a self-reinforcing cycle, where, like for snow, the melt of the ice sheets uncovers dark surfaces, which absorb more incoming solar radiation than ice, and therefore heat up and lead to further melt. This reduces the capacity of snow and firn to store runoff.

Fig. 6: Ice sheet from above [Credit: Matt Palmer on Unsplash].

Continued ice loss from Greenland and Antarctica is projected to alter the polar regions. While glaciers have been the dominant contributor to global sea-level rise, this will be replaced by ice sheets as they continue to lose mass into and beyond the 21st century.

However, a number of processes that could potentially lead to rapid ice loss in Antarctica are poorly understood, particularly their timescale and future rate. Therefore, large uncertainty remains in projecting future changes to these polar regions, especially beyond this century. Portions of Antarctica resting on bedrock below sea level could be vulnerable to self-sustaining feedbacks such as the Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI, see this previous post). It is uncertain from current observational data whether irreversible retreat is underway.

Ice shelves and their interactions with surface meltwater will play a key role in the response of Antarctica to future warming. Freshwater input to the oceans, from icebergs and ice shelves melting, is freshening global water mass currents and circulation, and this may be accelerating. This could inhibit the formation of important oceanic water masses such as the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Antarctic Bottom Water. Surface runoff and basal melting from both ice sheets are enhancing the input of dissolved nutrients into fjords and the ocean such as iron, which has been linked to enhanced primary productivity.

The report stresses that low emissions scenarios will potentially limit the rate and magnitude of future changes to the cryosphere. For example, polar glaciers are projected to lose much less mass between 2015 and 2100 under RCP 2.6 compared with RCP 8.5. Ice loss from polar ice sheets and glaciers presents a growing challenge to polar governance, and requires more coordinated efforts to build long-term resilience. In the Arctic, mitigating the effects of climate change can benefit strongly from community-led adaptation.

You can find full details of the estimates and predictions for ice sheets in SROCC, section 3.3 and in FAQ 3.1.

In summary

As a summary of our summary, and if you are interested in the ocean topics as well, have a look at this useful infographic by John Lang!

Here, you can see the most important points for the cryosphere (click on the link below or the picture to have a larger view):

Fig. 7: Parts of a summarizing infographic about SROCC [Credit: John Lang].

Further reading

Edited by Emma Smith


Laura Helene Rasmussen is a Danish permafrost scientist working at the Center for Permafrost, University of Copenhagen. She has spent many seasons in Greenland, working with the Greenland Ecosystem Monitoring Programme and is interested in Arctic soils as an ecosystem component, their climate sensitivity, functioning and simply understanding what goes on below.

 

 

Clara Burgard is a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. She investigates new methods to compare sea-ice as simulated by climate models, sea-ice as observed by satellites, and real sea ice. She tweets as @climate_clara.

 

 

 

Jenny Arthur is a PhD student at Durham University, UK. She investigates supraglacial lakes in Antarctica using remote sensing, and is especially interested in their seasonal evolution and interaction with ice dynamics. She tweets as @AntarcticJenny.

Image of the Week — Cavity leads to complexity

Aerial view of Thwaites Glacier [Credit: NASA/OIB/Jeremy Harbeck].

 

A 10km-long, 4-km-wide and 350m-high cavity has recently been discovered under one of the fastest-flowing glaciers in Antarctica using different airborne and satellite techniques (see this press release and this study). This enormous cavity previously contained 14 billion tons of ice and formed between 2011 and 2016. This indicates that the bottom of the big glaciers on Earth can melt faster than expected, with the potential to raise sea level more quickly than we thought. Let’s see in further details how the researchers made this discovery.


Thwaites Glacier

Thwaites Glacier is a wide and fast-flowing glacier flowing in West Antarctica. Over the last years, it has undergone major changes. Its grounding line (separation between grounded ice sheet and floating ice shelf) has retreated inland by 0.3 to 1.2 km per year in average since 2011. The glacier has also thinned by 3 to 7 m per year. Several studies suggest that this glacier is already engaged in an unstoppable retreat (e.g. this study), called ‘marine ice sheet instability’, with the potential to raise sea level by about 65 cm.

Identifying cavities

With the help of airborne and satellite measurement techniques, the researchers that carried out this study have discovered a 10km-long, 4km-wide and 350m-high cavity that formed between 2011 and 2016 more than 1 km below the ice surface. In Figure 2B, you can identify this cavity around km 20 along the T3-T4 profile between the green line (corresponding to the ice bottom in 2011) and the red line (ice bottom in 2016). According to the researchers, the geometry of the bed topography in this region allowed a significant amount of warm water from the ocean to come underneath the glacier and progressively melt its base. This lead to the creation of a huge cavity.

Fig. 2: A) Ice surface and bottom elevations in 2014 (blue) and 2016 (red) retrieved from airborne and satellite remote sensing along the T1-T2 profile identified in Fig. 2C. B) Ice surface and bottom elevations in 2011 (green) and 2016 (red) along the T3-T4 profile. C) Changes in ice surface elevation between 2011 and 2017. The ticks on the T1-T2 and T3-T4 profiles are marked every km [Credit: adapted with permission from Figure 3 of Milillo et al. (2019)].

What does it mean?

In order to make accurate projections of future sea-level rise coming from specific glaciers, such as Thwaites Glacier, ice-sheet models need to compute rates of basal melting in agreement with observations. This implies a correct representation of the bed topography and ice bottom underneath the glacier.

However, the current ice-sheet models usually suffer from a too low spatial resolution and use a fixed shape to represent cavities. Thus, these models probably underestimate the loss of ice coming from fast-flowing glaciers, such as Thwaites Glacier. By including the results coming from the observations of this study and further ongoing initiatives (such as the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration), ice-sheet models would definitely improve and better capture the complexity of glaciers.

Further reading

Edited by Sophie Berger


David Docquier is a post-doctoral researcher at the Earth and Life Institute of Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) in Belgium. He works on the development of processed-based sea-ice metrics in order to improve the evaluation of global climate models (GCMs). His study is embedded within the EU Horizon 2020 PRIMAVERA project, which aims at developing a new generation of high-resolution GCMs to better represent the climate.

 

Image of the Week – Greenland’s fjords: critical zones for mixing

Image of the Week – Greenland’s fjords: critical zones for mixing

One of the most challenging research questions to address in the Arctic is how freshwater discharge from Greenland’s largest glaciers affects the biogeochemistry of the ocean. Just getting close to the calving fronts of these large marine-terminating glaciers is difficult. Fjords, hundreds of kilometers long and full of icebergs which shift with the wind and roll as they melt, make the commute a little difficult. Navigating these fjords to within a few kilometers of Greenland’s largest glaciers requires a combination of luck, skillful handling of small boats and a ‘fortune favors the brave’ attitude to sampling which would probably upset even the most relaxed of University Health and Safety Officers. The limited field data we have from Greenland’s fjords must therefore be combined with other data sources in order to understand what happens between glaciers and the ocean.


The Challenge

The amount of freshwater discharged from the Greenland ice sheet into the ocean increases in response to climate change. This may affect both the fisheries which support the island’s economy and the carbon sink associated with fjord systems – the largest per unit surface area in the ocean. As a consequence, we need to assess how exactly this cold freshwater will affect the ocean. To do so requires collaboration of scientists with different backgrounds:

  • glaciologists, to understand the different components of freshwater released (ice melt, surface runoff, subglacial discharge),

  • physicists, to understand the fate of freshwater within a dynamic water column,

  • chemists, to understand how the availability of resources shifts in response to increasing freshwater

  • biologists, to understand the net effects of multiple physio-chemical changes to the environment on living organisms.

In the context of climate change it is also always worth remembering that the increase in Greenland ice sheet discharge occurs alongside other changes in the Arctic, such as the disappearance of sea ice and warming of the atmosphere and ocean. Thus, we really must unleash 4-dimensional thinking in order to understand the processes that are currently at work in the whole Arctic.

Recent work around Greenland has shown that one particularly important factor in determining how a glacier affects downstream marine ecosystems is whether it terminates on land or in the ocean. When a glacier sits in the ocean and releases meltwater at depth, this cold freshwater rapidly mixes with deep nutrient-rich seawater. This buoyant mix, known as an upwelling plume, rises upwards in the water column. These buoyant plumes act as a ‘nutrient pump’ bringing macronutrients from deep seawater to the surface and thus driving quite pronounced summertime phytoplankton blooms. Around Greenland, these blooms are quite remarkable. Summertime productivity in the open Atlantic is generally quite limited, while the main time of year when phytoplankton bloom is spring. In several of Greenland’s fjords, however, phytoplankton bloom over the meltwater season (around May-September). Understanding how these upwelling-driven blooms operate, and more importantly how they will change in the future, is a formidable challenge. There is an almost complete lack of either physical or biogeochemical data within a few kilometers of most large marine-terminating glaciers and thus our ability to quantify the relationship between discharge and downstream productivity is limited.

Contrasting effects of meltwater around Greenland depending on where the glacier terminates with respect to sea-level. [Credit: Fig 3 from Hopwood et al., (2018)].

Modelling what we cannot measure

Fortunately however, the field of subglacial discharge modelling is relatively well advanced. Since the 1950s, plume models have been used to describe reasonably well the subglacial discharge downstream of glaciers. Whilst all of Greenland’s glacier fjords are unique, we can at least model the processes that underpin the ‘nutrient pump’ leading to such unusual summertime productivity around Greenland.

One thing is particularly clear from the use of these models. The depth at which a glacier sits in the water column is a major factor for the magnitude of the upwelling effect. If a glacier retreats inland, this is generally bad news for downstream marine productivity. As marine-terminating glaciers retreat, the nutrient pump rapidly collapses if the glacier moves into shallower water – irrespective of what happens to the volume of discharged meltwater. For a majority of Greenland’s glaciers for which the topography under the glacier has been characterised, this will be indeed the case under climate change: as the glaciers retreat inland, their grounding lines will get shallower and shallower. The ‘nutrient pump’ associated with each one will therefore also diminish.

Outlook

There are still many things we don’t know about environmental change around Greenland, as our almost complete lack of data outside the meltwater season and very close to marine-terminating glacier termini still hinders our understanding of some critical processes. Only by adopting more inter-disciplinary methods of working and deploying new technology will these data-deficiencies be addressed.

Further reading

 

Edited by Sophie Berger and Clara Burgard


Mark Hopwood is a postdoc at GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany. He investigates how environmental changes, such as increasing freshwater discharge in the Arctic or declining oxygen in the tropics, affect the availability of nutrients to biota in the marine environment. By using a combination of fieldwork and targeted process studies the main goal is to identify and quantify biogeochemical feedbacks that act to amplify or dampen the response of marine biota to perturbations. He tweets as @Markinthelab. Contact Email: m.hopwood@geomar.de

Image of the Week – Oh Sheet!

Image of the Week – Oh Sheet!

The Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets are major players in future sea level rise. Still, there is a lot about these ice sheets we do not understand. Under the umbrella of the World Climate Research Programme, the international scientific community is coming together to improve ice sheet modelling efforts to better grasp the implications of climate change for ice sheet evolution, and consequently, sea level rise…


What are ice sheets?

An ice sheet is a massive chunk of glacier ice that sits on land – covering an area greater than 50,000 square kilometres (or 1.6 times the size of Belgium) by the official definition. Currently, the only two ice sheets on Earth are in Antarctica and Greenland. Ice in ice sheets flows from inland toward the coast under gravity. Due to the geothermal heat flux, ice sheets are usually warmer at the base than on the surface. When basal melting occurs, the melted water lubricates the ice sheet and accelerates the ice flow, forming fast-flowing ice streams. When ice flows down a coastline into the ocean, it may float due to buoyancy. The floating slab of ice is called an ice shelf (see these previous posts for more on ice shelves). The boundary that separates the grounded ice and floating ice is called the grounding line.

 

Why do we care about ice sheets?

The most uncertain potential source of future sea level rise is the contribution from ice sheets. According to observations, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have contributed approximately 7.5 and 4 mm of sea level rise respectively over the 1992-2011 period, and the contribution is accelerating. Knowing how the ice sheets will behave under future emission scenarios is crucial for risk assessment and policy-making (see this previous post for more on Antarctic ice sheets).

In addition to the direct impact on sea level rise, ice sheets interact with other components of the climate system. For example, ice discharge affects ocean circulation and marine biogeochemistry; changes in orography influence the atmosphere condition and circulation. In turn, the ice sheets gain mass primarily from snow fall, and lose mass through surface melting, surface sublimation, basal melting and ice discharge to the ocean, which are influenced by atmospheric and oceanographic processes. In Antarctica, the mass loss due to basal melting and iceberg calving is larger than snowfall accumulation. The Greenland Ice Sheet is also losing mass through iceberg calving and surface water runoff.

 

What’s CMIP?

Global coupled climate models are developed by different groups of scientists around the world to improve our understanding of the climate system. These models are highly complex, representing interactions between the ocean, atmosphere, land surface and cryosphere on global grids. The Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP) is a collaborative framework which provides a standard experimental protocol for the different models. The protocol includes a range of greenhouse gas emissions scenarios for future climate projections. Model output is made publicly available and forms the basis for assessments such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. The latest phase (CMIP6) is underway now.

 

What’s ISMIP6?

Ice sheets were considered as passive elements of the climate system previously and were not explicitly included in the CMIP process. However, observations of the rapid mass loss associated with dynamic change in ice sheets highlight the need to couple ice sheets to climate models. New developments in ice sheet modelling allow previously-omitted key processes which affect ice sheet dynamics on decadal timescales, such as grounding-line migration and basal lubrication, to be simulated with higher confidence.

ISMIP6 is an international effort designed to ensure that projections from ice sheet models are compatible with the CMIP6 process, bringing together scientists from over twenty institutions (Fig. 2). It aims to improve sea level projections, exploring sea level contribution from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets in a changing climate and investigating interactions between ice sheets and the climate system.

 

ISMIP6 Experiments

As shown in Figure 1, the objectives of ISMIP6 rely on three distinct modeling efforts:

  1. CMIP atmosphere-ocean general circulation models (AOGCM) without an ice sheet component
  2. standalone dynamic ice sheet models (ISMs) that are driven by forcing provided by CMIP
  3. fully coupled atmosphere-ocean-ice sheet models (AOGCM-ISMs).

 

In the first phase, ISMIP6 will compare output from different ice sheet models run in ‘standalone’ or ‘offline coupled’ mode. This means that they receive forcings from the climate model components like the ocean and atmosphere without feeding back. These experiments will be used to explore the uncertainty associated with ice sheets physics, dynamics and numerical implementation. In particular, ISMIP6 is currently focused on gaining insight into the uncertainty in ice sheet evolution resulting from the choice of initialization methods (the initMIP efforts for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets) and understanding the response of the Antarctic ice sheet to a total loss of the ice shelves (ABUMIP).

The model output of the initMIP simulations for Greenland is now publicly available.

Fig. 2: Participants of ISMIP6 standalone ice sheet modeling.

 

ISMIP6 workshop

Regular meetings are organised to update and facilitate communication between the participants. The most recent workshop was hosted in the Netherlands during 11 – 13 September 2018. The topic of the workshop was “Developing process-based projections of the ice sheets’ contribution to future sea level.” Participants aimed to evaluate the output of the CMIP6 climate models and obtain forcing for standalone ice sheet model experiments. During the workshop, scientists made progress on establishing the experimental protocols for the ice sheet model simulations that will be discussed in the IPCC sixth assessment report.

Fig.3: Participants in the ISMIP6 workshop in Leiden, Netherlands [Credit: Heiko Goelzer]

Further reading

Edited by Lettie Roach and Clara Burgard


Sainan Sun does her postdoctoral research with Frank Pattyn at Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB). She achieved her doctoral degree in 2014, majoring in ice sheet modeling at Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China. In her PhD study, she applied the BISICLES ice sheet model to Pine island glacier, Aurora drainage basin and Lambert-Amery drainage basin to describe the dynamical response of the Antarctic ice sheet to perturbations in boundary conditions. For the project at ULB, she aims to investigate the ice shelf features based on data acquired in Roi Baudouin ice shelf, Antarctica, and to estimate the potential instability of the Antarctic ice sheet using the f.ETISh ice sheet model. Contact Email: sainsun@ulb.ac.be

Image of the Week – Super-cool colours of icebergs

Image of the Week – Super-cool colours of icebergs

It is Easter weekend! And as we do not want you to forget about our beloved cryosphere, we provide you with a picture nearly as colourful as the Easter eggs: very blue icebergs! What makes them so special? This is what this Image of the Week is about…


What are icebergs made of?

Fig.2: An iceberg with ‘scallop’ indentations [Credit: Stephen Warren].

Icebergs are chunks of ice which break off from land ice, such as glaciers or ice sheets (as you’ll know if you remember our previous post on icebergs). This means that they are mostly made up of glacial ice, which is frozen freshwater from accumulated snowfall. However, in some places where ice sheets extend to the coastline, making an ice shelf, icebergs can be made up of a different type of ice too.

 

Ice shelves can descend far down into the ocean. Seawater in contact with the ice at depth in the ocean is cooled to the freezing temperature. Because the freezing temperature decreases with decreasing pressure, if the seawater moves upwards in the ocean, it will have a temperature lower than the freezing temperature at that depth. That means it’s super-cooled – the seawater temperature is below the freezing temperature, but it hasn’t become a solid. The seawater cannot last for long in this state and freezes to the base of ice shelves as marine ice, which is seawater frozen at depth. The marine ice can help stabilize the ice shelf as it is less susceptible to fractures than glacial ice. Icebergs that calve from Antarctic ice shelves can sometimes be mixtures of glacial ice (on the top) and marine ice (on the bottom).

 

What can icebergs tell us?

Icebergs which tip over can tell us about processes that happen at the base of ice shelves. For example, scallops on the ice (the small indentations that can be seen in the second picture) can show the size of turbulent ocean eddies in the ocean at the ice shelf base. Basal cavities or channels show where oceanic melt had a large impact. Any colours visible in the iceberg can also give us information.

Fig.3: Marine ice containing organic matter, giving a greenish appearance [Credit: Stephen Warren].

Why are icebergs different colours?

Like snow (see this previous post), different types of ice appear different colours. A typical iceberg is white because it is covered with dense snow, and snowflakes reflect all wavelengths of ice equally. The albedo of snow, which is the proportion of the incident light or radiation that is reflected by a surface, is very high (nearly 1). Glacial ice is compressed snow, meaning it has fewer light-scattering air bubbles, so light can penetrate deeper than in snow, and more yellows and reds from the visible spectrum are absorbed. This results in a bubbly blue colour, with a slightly lower albedo than snow. Marine ice does not have bubbles, but light can be scattered by cracks, resulting in clear blue ice (see our Image of the Week). However, if the seawater from which the marine ice was formed contained organic matter, like algae and plankton, the resulting marine ice can have a yellowish or even green appearance (Fig. 3). If the marine ice formed near the base of an ice shelf where it meets the sea floor, it could contain sediment, giving it a dirty or black appearance.

So the colour of icebergs can tell us something about how ice was formed hundreds of metres below the ocean surface. You could even say that was super-cool…

Further reading

  • Warren, S. G., C. S. Roesler, V. I. Morgan, R. E. Brandt, I. D. Goodwin, and I. Allison (1993), Green icebergs formed by freezing of organic-rich seawater to the base of Antarctic ice shelves, J. Geophys. Res., 98(C4), 6921–6928, doi:10.1029/92JC02751.
  • Morozov, E.G., Marchenko, A.V. & Fomin, Y.V. Izv. (2015): Supercooled water near the Glacier front in Spitsbergen, Atmos. Ocean. Phys. 51(2), 203-207. https://doi.org/10.1134/S0001433815020115
  • Image of the Week – Ice Ice Bergy
  • Image of the Week – Fifty shades of snow

This post is based on a talk by Stephen Warren presented at AMOS-ICSHMO2018

Edited by Clara Burgard


Lettie Roach is a PhD student at Victoria University of Wellington and the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand. Her project is on the representation of sea ice in large-scale models, including model development, model-observation comparisons and observation of small-scale sea ice processes.  

 

Mapping the bottom of the world — an Interview with Brad Herried, Antarctic Cartographer

Mapping the bottom of the world — an Interview with Brad Herried, Antarctic Cartographer

Mapping Earth’s most remote continent presents a number of unique challenges. Antarctic cartographers and scientists are using some of the most advanced mapping technologies available to get a clearer picture of the continent. We asked Brad Herried, a Cartographer and Web Developer at the Polar Geospatial Center at the University of Minnesota, a few questions about what it’s like to do this unique job both on and off the ice.


Before we go too much further… what is the Polar Geospatial Center, and what does it do for polar science and scientists?

The Polar Geospatial Center (PGC), founded in 2007 by Director Paul Morin, is a research group of about 20 staff and students at the University of Minnesota with a simple mission: solve geospatial problems at the poles (Antarctica and the Arctic). Because we are funded (primarily) through the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) and NASA Cryospheric Sciences, that is the community we support – other U.S.-funded polar researchers. We provide custom maps, high-resolution commercial satellite imagery, and Geographic Information System (GIS) support for researchers who would like to use the data for their research but may not have the expertise to do so.

Our primary service is providing high-resolution satellite imagery (i.e. from the DigitalGlobe, Inc. constellation) to U.S.-funded polar researchers – at no additional cost to their grants – through licensing agreements with the U.S. Government. It has proven beneficial to researchers to have a service so that we do the hard parts of data management, remote sensing, and automation of satellite imagery processing so that they don’t have to. So, a glaciologist or geomorphologist or wildlife ecologist studying at the poles may come to us and say: I would like to use satellite imagery to study phenomenon x or y. Some groups use it just for logistics (these are some of the least mapped places on Earth after all) to get to their site. Some groups’ entire research is done using remote sensing.

What kinds of data and resources do you use?

The PGC’s polar archive of high-resolution commercial imagery is absolutely astounding (like, in the thousands of terabytes). The imagery, although licensed to us by U.S. Government contracts, is collected by the DigitalGlobe, Inc. constellation of satellites (e.g. WorldView-2), much like the imagery where you can see your house/car in Google Earth. The benefit is that we can provide it at no cost to our users (researchers). That resource, along with the expertise of the staff at PGC, can provide solutions to users, whether it’s making a simple map of a remote research site or providing a time-series of satellite imagery for a researcher studying change detection (like, say for a glacier front in Greenland).

This also presents a challenge. How do we manage and effectively deliver that much data? We have relied on skilled staff, ingenuity, cheap storage, high-performance computing, and automation to become successful.

As the saying goes, automate or die.

What’s your role at the PGC? How did you find your way into a job like this?

I started at the PGC as a graduate student in 2008. I knew nothing about Antarctica or the Arctic, but my background and studies in GIS & cartography offered a wide range of jobs. After I graduated, I became a full-time employee as the lead cartographer of the (at the time, very small) group. Currently, I do a lot more GIS web application development and geospatial data management. We have recognized the need for more automated, “self-service” systems for our users to get the data they need in a timely manner, and less of asking a PGC employee for a custom product. As the saying goes, automate or die. But, of course, I still spend a fair bit of my times creating maps to keep my cartographic juices going.

Antarctica and the South Polar Regions. Map from the American explorer Richard Byrd’s second expedition in 1933. [Credit: Byrd Antarctic Expeditions]

What kind of work do PGC employees do in Antarctica?

The PGC staffs an office at the United States’ McMurdo Station annually from October to February, with 3-5 staff rotating throughout the field season. It is really an extension of our responsibilities, with a couple interesting twists, both good and bad. First, a majority of our users (NSF-funded researchers) come through McMurdo Station in preparation for their fieldwork. It’s a beneficial and unique experience to meet with them one-on-one and solve problems, ironically, faster than email exchanges back in the States. Second – and this is true of all of Antarctica – the internet bandwidth is very limited. So, we have to a) prepare more regarding what data/imagery we have on site and b) do more with less. That always proves to be a fun challenge because it is impossible to access our entire archive of imagery from down there.

How could I forget collecting Google Street View in Antarctica.

There have been several years, however, when we do get to go out into the field! In past years, we have conducted various field campaigns in the nearby McMurdo Dry Valleys to collect survey ground control to make our satellite imagery more accurate. And, how could I forget collecting Google Street View (with some custom builds of the typical car-camera system for snowmobiles, heavy-duty trucks, and backpacks). The Google Street View provides a window into the world of Antarctica – history, facilities, science, and of course its beautiful landscapes – to a wide audience who only dream of visiting Antarctica.

Brad on a snowmobile collecting Google Street View imagery [Credit: Brad Herried]

What are some of the interesting projects PGC has worked on? What’s exciting at PGC right now?

The PGC does a lot to contribute to polar mapping. There’s not exactly a ton of geospatial data or maps for the polar regions, especially Antarctica. What data or maps there are, it is not often of very high quality. For example, there are regions of Antarctica (especially in inland East Antarctica) which have not been properly mapped or surveyed since the 1960s. Those maps offer little help if you’re trying to land an aircraft in the area. So, PGC has done a lot to improve that geospatial data including creating more accurate coastlines, improving geographic coordinates of named features (sometimes the location can be off by 10s of kilometers!), organizing historic aerial photography, and digitizing map collections. These are important to have, but it all changes when you can collect data 100 times more accurate with satellites…

There’s not exactly a ton of geospatial data or maps for the polar regions, especially Antarctica.

Where it gets really interesting is how we can apply our archive of satellite imagery to help researchers solve problems or come up with cutting-edge solutions with the data. One example is the ArcticDEM project. In a private-public collaboration, PGC is using high performance computing (HPC) to develop a pan-Arctic Digital Elevation Model (DEM) at a resolution 10 times better than what exists now. This project requires hundreds of thousands of stereoscopic satellite imagery pairs to be processed using photogrammetry techniques to build a three-dimensional model of the surface for the entire Arctic. There are countless more applications for the imagery and we’ll continue to push the limits of the technology to produce innovative products to help measure the Earth and solve really important research questions.

ArcticDEM hillshade in East Greenland. DEM(s) created by the Polar Geospatial Center from DigitalGlobe, Inc. imagery. [Credit: Brad Herried/ Polar Geospatial Center].

 

What resources can cryosphere researchers and other polar scientists without US funding get from PGC to enhance their research?

Our website provides a wealth of non-licensed data, freely available to download. That includes our polar map catalog (with over 2,000 historic maps of the polar regions), aerial photography, and elevation data. The ArcticDEM project I mentioned before is freely available (see https://www.pgc.umn.edu/data/arcticdem/), as are all DEMs created (derived) from the optical imagery. Moreover, we work with the international community on a regular basis to continue mapping efforts across both poles.

 

What advice do you have for students interested in a career in science or geospatial science?

This might be a little bit of a tangent, but learn to code. I was trained in cartography ten years ago and we hardly touched the command line. Now? You certainly don’t have to be an expert, say, Python programmer, but you’re behind if you don’t know how to automate some of your tasks, data processing, analysis, or other routine workflows. It allows you to focus on the things you’re actually an expert in (and, employers are most certainly looking for these skills).

ArcticDEM hillshade of Columbia Glacier, Alaska. DEM(s) created by the Polar Geospatial Center from DigitalGlobe, Inc. imagery. [Credit: Brad Herried/ Polar Geospatial Center].

Personally, what has been the highlight of your time at PGC so far?

I will never forget the first time I stepped off the plane landing in Antarctica as a graduate student. A surreal, breathtaking (literally), and completely foreign feeling. To be able to experience the most remote places on Earth first-hand naturally leads to a better understanding of them. So, the highlight for me is this: I find myself asking more questions, talking to the preeminent researchers and students about their work, and discovering the purpose of it all. I may be a small piece in the puzzle of understanding our Earth’s poles, but I’m humbled to be a part.

Interview and Editing by George Roth, Additional Editing by Sophie Berger

Image of the Week – A new way to compute ice dynamic changes

Fig. 1: Map of ice velocity from the NASA MEaSUREs Program showing the region of Enderby Land in East Antarctica [Credit: Fig. 1 from Kallenberg et al. (2017) ].

Up to now, ice sheet mass changes due to ice dynamics have been computed from satellite observations that suffer from sparse coverage in time and space. A new method allows us to compute these changes on much wider temporal and spatial scales. But how does this method work? Let us discover the different steps by having a look at Enderby Land in East Antarctica, for which ice velocities are shown in our Image of the Week…


Mass balance of ice sheets

The mass balance of an ice sheet is the difference between the mass gain of ice, primarily through snowfall, and the mass loss of ice, primarily via meltwater runoff and ice dynamic processes (e.g. iceberg calving, melting below ice shelves). When the mass gain is equal to the mass loss, the ice sheet is in balance. However, if one exceeds the other, the ice sheet either gains or loses mass.

Measuring mass balance changes of ice sheets is crucial due to their potential contribution to sea level rise (see previous post). You can have a look at this nice review for further details about the recent changes in the mass balance of the two biggest ice sheets on Earth, i.e. Antarctica and Greenland.

Ice mass changes from snowfall and meltwater runoff (what we call ‘surface mass balance’ changes) are reasonably well simulated by regional climate models, which give good agreement with observations (see this study for Antarctica and this one for Greenland). Mass changes from ice dynamics are more complex to obtain. They are commonly estimated by combining ice velocity and ice thickness. Ice velocity is measured via satellite radar interferometry, while ice thickness is obtained thanks to airborne radar. Unfortunately, these measurements have sparse temporal and spatial coverage, especially in Antarctica, which makes the computation of mass changes from ice dynamics challenging.

A new method to estimate ice dynamic changes

Kallenberg et al. (2017) conducted a study focussing on Enderby Land in East Antarctica (see our Image of the Week) in which they use a novel approach to estimate ice dynamic changes. This region of Antarctica has experienced a slightly positive mass balance in past years, meaning that the ice sheet has slightly thickened in this region.

Kallenberg et al. (2017) first used satellite observations to compute the total changes in ice sheet mass. They took advantage of two high-technology datasets. The first one, “Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment” (GRACE), measures changes in the Earth’s gravity field, from which ice mass changes can be derived. A summary explaining how GRACE works can be found in this previous post. The second satellite dataset, “Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite” (ICESat), measures changes in ice surface elevation, from which changes in ice mass can be computed by using ice density.

However, Kallenberg et al. (2017) were not interested in the total ice mass changes, as obtained from GRACE and ICESat satellites, but rather in ice dynamic changes. They subtracted two quantities from the total mass changes in order to obtain the remaining dynamic changes:

  1. Surface mass balance changes: changes from processes happening at the surface of the ice sheet (e.g. snow accumulation, meltwater runoff). These changes were obtained from model simulations using the Regional Atmospheric Climate Model (RACMO2), for which details can be found in this previous post.
  2. Glacial Isostatic Adjustment: changes in land topography due to ice loading and unloading. These changes were computed from Glacial Isostatic Adjustment models.

What does this study tell us?

The results of this study show that it is possible to compute changes in ice mass resulting from ice dynamics with higher spatial and temporal coverage than before, using a combination of satellite observations and models.

Also, the use of two different satellite datasets (GRACE and ICESat) shows that they agree quite well with each other in the region of Enderby Land (see Fig. 2). This means that using one or the other dataset does not make a big difference.

Finally, this new method also shows that differences between GRACE and ICESat reduce when using the newer version of RACMO2 for computing surface mass balance changes. This tells us that comparing results of ice dynamics from both satellites with different models is a good way to identify which models correctly simulate surface processes and which models do not.

Fig. 2: Ice dynamic changes (dH/dt, where H is ice thickness and t is time) computed from (a) GRACE and (b) ICESat and expressed in meters per year [Credit: Fig. 5 from Kallenberg et al. (2017) ].

Further reading

Edited by Clara Burgard and Emma Smith


David Docquier is a post-doctoral researcher at the Earth and Life Institute of Université catholique de Louvain (UCL) in Belgium. He works on the development of processed-based sea-ice metrics in order to improve the evaluation of global climate models (GCMs). His study is embedded within the EU Horizon 2020 PRIMAVERA project, which aims at developing a new generation of high-resolution GCMs to better represent the climate.

Image of the Week – Summer is fieldwork season at EastGRIP!

Image of the Week – Summer is fieldwork season at EastGRIP!

As the days get very long, summer is a popular season for conducting fieldwork at high latitudes. At the North East Greenland Ice Stream (NEGIS), the East Greenland Ice-core Project (EastGRIP) is ongoing. Several scientists are busy drilling an ice core through the ice sheet to the very bottom, in continuation to previous years (see here and here). This year, amongst others, several members from the European Research Council (ERC) supported synergy project ice2ice are taking part in the work at EastGRIP. Besides sleeping in the barracks that can be seen in our Image of the Week, the scientists enjoy the international and interdisciplinary setting and, of course, the work in a deep ice core drilling camp…


Life at the EastGRIP camp

In total, 22 people live in the camp (see Fig.2): 1 field leader, 5 ice core drillers, 4 ice core loggers, 3 people working with the physical properties of the ice, 2 are doing continuous water isotope analysis, 2 surface science scientists, 2 field assistants, and 1 mechanic, 1 electrical engineer and most important an excellent cook. We cover a variety of nationalities: British, Czech, Danish, French, German, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Russian and more. The crew changes every four weeks and the EastGRIP project aims to get as many young scientists (Master and PhD students) into camp as possible, so that it also works as a learning environment for new generations. In total, the number of people that have and will spent time at EastGRIP this season is almost 100, making it a buzzing science hub. This environment leads to extensive science discussions over the dinner table and therefore facilitates the interdisciplinary connections so vital in ice core science.

Fig.2: The current crew at EastGRIP dressed up for the Saturday party (tie and dress obligatory!) [Credit: EastGRIP diaries].

Science at the EastGRIP camp

The main aim of the EastGRIP project is to retrieve an ice core by drilling through the North East Greenland Ice Stream (NEGIS) up to a depth of 2550 m (!). Ice streams are responsible for draining a significant fraction of the ice from the Greenland Ice Sheet (see Fig. 3). We hope to gain new and fundamental information on ice stream dynamics from the project, thereby improving the understanding of how ice streams will contribute to future sea-level change. The EastGRIP project has many international partners and is managed by the Centre for Ice and Climate, Denmark with air support carried out by US ski-equipped Hercules aircraft managed through the US Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation.

Fig. 3: Ice velocities from RADARSAT synthetic aperture radar data are shown in color and illustrate the wedge of fast-flowing ice that begins right at the central ice divide and cuts through the ice sheet to feed into the ocean through three large ice streams (Nioghalvfjerds isstrømmen, Zachariae isbræ, and Storstrømmen). [Credit: EastGRIP, data from Joughin et al., 2010]

Currently, four Norwegian and Danish scientists from the ice2ice project have joined the EastGRIP project to conduct field work at the ice core drilling site. The ice2ice project focuses on how land ice and sea ice influence each other in past, present, and future. Thus, being at the EastGRIP site is a great opport

unity for us in ice2ice to learn more about how the fast-flowing ice stream in North East Greenland may influence the stability of the Greenland ice cap and to enjoy the collaborative spirit at an ice core drilling site.

 

This year’s fieldwork at EastGRIP started in May and will continue until August. We aim to make it through the brittle zone of the ice. This is a zone where the gas bubbles get enclosed in the ice crystals and thus the ice is, as the name indicates, more brittle than at other depths. Unfortunately for us, the brittle zone makes it very hard to retrieve the ice in a great quality. This is because of the pressure difference between the original depth of the ice and the surface, that causes the ice to fracture when it arrives at the surface. We are doing our very best to stabilize the core and several optimizations in terms of both drilling and processing of the ice core are being applied.

Fig. 4: Cross-section view of an ice core [Credit: Helle Astrid Kjær].

Still, a large part of the core can already be investigated (see Fig. 4) for water isotopes to get information about past climate. Also, ice crystals directions are being investigated through thin slices of the ice core to help better understanding the flow of the NEGIS. On top of the deep ice core, which is to be drilled to bedrock over the coming years, we are doing an extensive surface program to look at accumulation changes.

In the large white plains…

Despite all the fun science and people, when you are at EastGRIP for more than 4 weeks, you have a very similar landscape everyday and can miss seeing something else than just the great white. About a week ago, a falcon came by to remind us of the rest of the world (see Fig. 5). It flew off after a couple of days. We will follow its path to the greener parts of Greenland when we will soon fly down to Kangerlussuaq. Someone else will then take over our job at EastGRIP and enjoy the wonders of white…

Fig.5: Visit of a falcon [Credit: Helle Astrid Kjær].

Further reading

Edited by Clara Burgard


Helle Astrid Kjær is a postdoc at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at University of Copenhagen. When she is not busy in the field drilling and logging ice cores, she spends most of her time in the lab retrieving the climate signal from ice cores. These include volcanic events, sea salts, dust with more by means of Continuous Flow Analaysis (CFA). Further she is hired to manage the ice2ice project.

Image of the Week — High altitudes slow down Antarctica’s warming

Elevations in Antarctica. The average altitude is about 2,500m. [Credit: subset of Fig 5 from Helm et al (2014)]

When it comes to climate change, the Arctic and the Antarctic are poles apart. At the north of the planet, temperatures are increasing twice as fast as in the rest of the globe, while warming in Antarctica has been milder. A recent study published in Earth System Dynamics shows that the high elevation of Antarctica might help explain why the two poles are warming at different speeds.


The Arctic vs the Antarctic

At and around the North Pole, in the Arctic, the ice is mostly frozen ocean water, also known as sea ice, which is only a few meters thick. In the Antarctic, however, the situation is very different: the ice forms not just over sea, but over a continental land mass with rugged terrain and high mountains. The average height in Antarctica is about 2,500 metres, with some mountains rising as high as 4,900 metres.

A flat Antarctica would warm faster

Mount Jackson in the Antarctic Peninsula reaches an altitude of 3,184 m  [Credit: euphro via Flickr]

Marc Salzmann, a scientist working at the University of Leipzig in Germany, decided to use a computer model to find out what would happen if the elevation in Antarctica was more like in the Arctic. He discovered that, if Antarctica were flat, there would be more warm air flowing from the equator to the poles, which would make the Antarctic warm faster.

As Antarctica warms and ice melts, it is actually getting flatter as time goes by, even if very slowly. As such, over the next few centuries or thousands of years, we could expect warming in the region to speed up.

Reference/further reading

planet_pressThis is modified version of a “planet press” article written by Bárbara Ferreira and originally published on 18 May 2017 on the EGU website
(a Serbian version is also available, why not considering adding a new language to the list? 🙂 )

Image of the Week – Antarctica’s Flowing Ice, Year by Year

Fig 1: Map series of annual ice sheet speed from Mouginot et al. (2017). Speeds range from 0 (purple) to 1000+ (dark brown) m/yr. [Credit: George Roth]

Today’s Image of the Week shows annual ice flow velocity mosaics at 1km resolution from 2005 to 2016 for the Antarctic ice sheet. These mosaics, along with similar data for Greenland (see Fig.2), were published by Mouginot et al, (2017) last month as part of NASA’s MEaSUREs (Making Earth System Data Records for Use in Research Environments) program.


How were these images constructed?

The mosaics shown today (Fig 1 and 2) were built by combining optical imagery from the Landsat-8 satellite with radar (SAR) data from the Sentinel-1a/b, RADARSAT-2, ALOS PALSAR, ENVISAT ASAR, RADARSAT-1, TerraSAR-X, and TanDEM-X sensors.

Although the authors used the well-known techniques of feature and speckle tracking to produce their velocities from optical and radar images, respectively, the major novelty of their study lies in the automation and integration of the different datasets.

Fig.2: Mosaics of yearly velocity maps of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet for the period 2015-2016.Composite of satellite-derived yearly ice sheet speeds from 2005-2016 for both Greenland and Antarctica. [Credit: cover figure from Mouginot et al. (2017)]

How is this new dataset useful?

Previously, ice sheet modellers have used mosaics composed of satellite data from multiple years to cover the entire ice sheet. However, this new dataset is one of the first to provide an ice-sheet-wide geographic scale, a yearly temporal resolution, and a moderately high spatial resolution (1km). This means that modellers can now better examine how large parts of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets evolve over time. By linking the evolution of the ice sheets to the changes in weather and climate over those ice sheets during specific years, modellers can calibrate the response of those ice sheets’ outlet glaciers to different climate conditions. The changes in the speeds of these outlet glaciers have important consequences for the amount of sea level rise expected for a given amount of warming.

How can I start using this data?

The yearly MEaSUREs data is hosted at the NSIDC in NetCDF format. The maps shown in the animated image were made using Quantarctica/QGIS (for more information on Quantarctica, check out our previous post E). QGIS natively supports NetCDF files like these mosaics with no additional import steps. Users can quickly calculate new grids showing speed, changes in velocities between years, and more by using the QGIS Raster Calculator or gdal_calc.

References/ Further Reading

Mouginot, J., Rignot, E., Scheuchl, B., & Millan, R. (2017). Comprehensive Annual Ice Sheet Velocity Mapping Using Landsat-8, Sentinel-1, and RADARSAT-2 Data. Remote Sensing, 9(4), 364. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/rs9040364

Image of the Week – Quantarctica: Mapping Antarctica has never been so easy!

Image of the Week – A high-resolution picture of Greenland’s surface mass balance

Written with help from Jelte van Oostsveen
Edited by Clara Burgard and Sophie Berger


George Roth is the Quantarctica Project Coordinator in the Glaciology group (@NPIglaciology) at the Norwegian Polar Institute. He has spent the last several years helping researchers with GIS, cartography, and remote sensing in both the Arctic and Antarctic.