The PIG

For threads primarily discussing Climate Change (particularly in relation to Peak Oil)

Moderator: Peak Moderation

Post Reply
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

The PIG

Post by biffvernon »

Recently published article on pine Island Glacier:
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/ ... e2094.html
Abstract wrote:Over the past 40 years Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica has thinned at an accelerating rate, so that at present it is the largest single contributor to sea-level rise in Antarctica. In recent years, the grounding line, which separates the grounded ice sheet from the floating ice shelf, has retreated by tens of kilometres. At present, the grounding line is crossing a retrograde bedrock slope that lies well below sea level, raising the possibility that the glacier is susceptible to the marine ice-sheet instability mechanism. Here, using three state-of-the-art ice-flow models, we show that Pine Island Glacier’s grounding line is probably engaged in an unstable 40 km retreat. The associated mass loss increases substantially over the course of our simulations from the average value of 20 Gt yr−1 observed for the 1992–2011 period, up to and above 100 Gt yr−1, equivalent to 3.5–10 mm eustatic sea-level rise over the following 20 years. Mass loss remains elevated from then on, ranging from 60 to 120 Gt yr−1.
Concentrate on that last bit. Am I reading this correctly? The PIG might, on its own, deliver a metre of sea level rise by the end of the century?
User avatar
RenewableCandy
Posts: 12780
Joined: 12 Sep 2007, 12:13
Location: York

Post by RenewableCandy »

It looks more like 1 cm in 20 years, or 5-ish cm by the end of the century, if the rate stays the same that is. It'll probably accelerate but is that likely to result in a whole metre-worth?
Soyez réaliste. Demandez l'impossible.
Stories
The Price of Time
User avatar
biffvernon
Posts: 18538
Joined: 24 Nov 2005, 11:09
Location: Lincolnshire
Contact:

Post by biffvernon »

Yes, I think you are right. It's just that the mass loss was given per year, and it's not absolutely clear that the eustatic rise is per 20 years or per year for 20 years. Who's got access behind the pay-wall to get further than the abstract?
Post Reply