4.8 Article

Sharply increased mass loss from glaciers and ice caps in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago

Journal

NATURE
Volume 473, Issue 7347, Pages 357-360

Publisher

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/nature10089

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NSERC Canada
  2. Alberta Ingenuity Fund
  3. European Union [226375]
  4. NSERC
  5. CFCAS through the Polar Climate Stability Network

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Mountain glaciers and ice caps are contributing significantly to present rates of sea level rise and will continue to do so over the next century and beyond(1-5). The Canadian Arctic Archipelago, located off the northwestern shore of Greenland, contains one-third of the global volume of land ice outside the ice sheets(6), but its contribution to sea-level change remains largely unknown. Here we show that the Canadian Arctic Archipelago has recently lost 61 +/- 7 gigatonnes per year (Gt yr(-1)) of ice, contributing 0.17 +/- 0.02 mm yr(-1) to sea-level rise. Our estimates are of regional mass changes for the ice caps and glaciers of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago referring to the years 2004 to 2009 and are based on three independent approaches: surface mass-budget modelling plus an estimate of ice discharge (SMB+D), repeat satellite laser altimetry (ICESat) and repeat satellite gravimetry (GRACE). All three approaches show consistent and large mass-loss estimates. Between the periods 2004-2006 and 2007-2009, the rate of mass loss sharply increased from 31 +/- 8 Gt yr(-1) to 92 +/- 12 Gt yr(-1) in direct response to warmer summer temperatures, to which rates of ice loss are highly sensitive (64 +/- 14 Gt yr(-1) per 1 K increase). The duration of the study is too short to establish a long-term trend, but for 2007-2009, the increase in the rate of mass loss makes the Canadian Arctic Archipelago the single largest contributor to eustatic sea-level rise outside Greenland and Antarctica.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available