4.8 Article

Sea level rise from West Antarctic mass loss significantly modified by large snowfall anomalies

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 14, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-023-36990-3

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Anomalous precipitation has a significant impact on mass loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Persistently low snowfall during 2009-2013 increased glacier melt, while extreme precipitation in 2019 and 2020 decreased mass loss. These findings highlight the importance of snowfall variability on short-term sea level contribution from West Antarctica.
Mass loss from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is dominated by glaciers draining into the Amundsen Sea Embayment (ASE), yet the impact of anomalous precipitation on the mass balance of the ASE is poorly known. Here we present a 25-year (1996-2021) record of ASE input-output mass balance and evaluate how two periods of anomalous precipitation affected its sea level contribution. Since 1996, the ASE has lost 3331424Gt ice, contributing 9.2 +/- 1.2mm to global sea level. Overall, surface mass balance anomalies contributed little (7.7%) to total mass loss; however, two anomalous precipitation events had larger, albeit short-lived, impacts on rates of mass change. During 2009-2013, persistently low snowfall led to an additional 51 +/- 4Gtyr(-1) mass loss in those years (contributing positively to the total loss of 195 +/- 4Gtyr(-1)). Contrastingly, extreme precipitation in the winters of 2019 and 2020 decreased mass loss by 60 +/- 16Gtyr(-1) during those years (contributing negatively to the total loss of 107 +/- 15Gtyr(-1)). These results emphasise the important impact of extreme snowfall variability on the short-term sea level contribution from West Antarctica. The authors combine measurements of ice loss from West Antarctica with climate modelling to show that periods of drought or extremely heavy precipitation can significantly increase or decrease rates of mass loss for periods lasting several years.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据