Geophys. J. Int. (2007) 170, 145–150 doi: 10.1111/j.1365-246X.2007.03472.

The melting of floating ice raises the ocean level

Peter D. Noerdlinger1, ∗ and Kay R. Brower2

1 St. Mary’s University, Department of Astronomy and Physics, Halifax, N.S., B3H 3C3 Canada. E-mail: pnoerdlinger@ap.stmarys.ca
2 New Mexico Institute of Technology, Department of Chemistry, Socorro, NM 87801, USA

Accepted 2007 April 19. Received 2007 April 13; in original form 2005 August 1

SUMMARY

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/170/1/145/2019346 by guest on 07 April 2019

It is shown that the melting of ice floating on the ocean will introduce a volume of water about
2.6 per cent greater than that of the originally displaced sea water. The melting of floating ice
in a global warming will cause the ocean to rise. If all the extant sea ice and floating shelf ice
melted, the global sea level would rise about 4 cm. The sliding of grounded ice into the sea,
however, produces a mean water level rise in two parts; some of the rise is delayed. The first

GJI Marine geoscience

part, while the ice floats, is equal to the volume of displaced sea water. The second part, equal
to 2.6 per cent of the first, is contributed as it melts. These effects result from the difference
in volume of equal weights of fresh and salt water. This component of sea rise is apparently
unrecognized in the literature to date, although it can be interpreted as a form of halosteric
sea level change by regarding the displaced salt water and the meltwater (even before melting)
as a unit. Although salinity changes are known to affect sea level, all existing analyses omit
our calculated volume change. We present a protocol that can be used to calculate global sea
level rise on the basis of the addition of meltwater from grounded and floating ice; of course
thermosteric volume change must be added.
Key words: density, laboratory measurement, oceans, present-day ice melting, sea level
change.

to thermal expansion, and halosteric rise due to change of salinity

1 I N T RO D U C T I O N
(Antonov et al. 2002.) The latter portion of steric sea level change
Common lore (Warrick et al. 1996; Church et al. 2001; Miller can be interpreted as consistent with our effect. In fact, because the
& Douglas 2004; Oppenheimer 2004; Spokes 2004; Wadhams & melting of floating ice does not involve a gain or loss of mass, differ-
Munk 2004; Williams 2004; Weart 2005; Kolbert 2005) holds that, ences in specific volume due to differences in salinity can be found
due to Archimedes’ Principle (Archimedes, ca. 220BC), the melting from formulas or graphs usually used for halosteric change, such as
of floating ice will not change the global mean sea level. The melt- those in Pattullo et al. (1955), or in Gill (1982). The dependence of
ing of ice was heretofore believed to raise the sea level only when density on salinity and temperature is referred to as the ‘equation
the ice is supported by land (‘grounded ice’). This supposition is of state,’ hereinafter ‘EOS.’ Nevertheless, all existing discussions
implicit in analyses of sea level rise that omit floating ice from the of melting and freezing (excepting Grumbine 1997) exclude our
fluid budget (Meier & Wahr 2002) and explicit in Munk (2003), as calculated volume change, a 2.6 per cent effect, because the analy-
well as Antonov et al. (2002), who directly state that the melting of sis specifically excludes the melting of floating ice on the basis of a
floating ice is to be excluded in calculating sea level rise. Antonov misapplication of Archimedes’ Principle (Section 2). (When ocean
(private communication, 2005) confirms that their term ‘sea ice’ water freezes into sea ice, a similar decrease in effective ocean vol-
refers to all floating ice and that zero direct volumetric effect was ume, equal to 2.6 per cent of the volume that has frozen, occurs.)
expected from the melting of floating ice. When grounded ice either Even Grumbine (1997) found, however, only a 4 mm sea rise from
slides or calves directly into the sea, it is usually supposed to add the melting of sea ice (frozen sea water), a number that increases
at once to the oceans the volume of its eventual meltwater, but we tenfold when floating ice sheets in Antarctica are included. Changes
will show that both the foregoing suppositions are inaccurate. Our in salinity are used variously by different researchers to estimate eu-
effect is not related to ice buttressing (Alley et al. 2005; Dupont static sea level change (net addition of fresh water), and, locally, the
& Alley 2005) or to either eustatic or steric rise as usually defined halosteric rise or fall (which we show to be related to our effect).
(Munk 2003; Dupont & Alley 2005), because it involves neither To highlight the problem areas, we first delineate the sources of sea
inflow of continental fresh water (eustatic rise) nor thermal expan- water freshening.
sion. Actually, steric rise can be broken into thermosteric rise, due A decrease of salinity can result in following three basic ways.

(1) An infusion of fresh water from the melting of grounded ice,

∗ Now at: 1222 Oakleaf Circle, Boulder, CO 80304-1151, USA. or from precipitation or river run-off.


C 2007 Authors Journal 145
Journal compilation 
C 2007 RAS
146 P. D. Noerdlinger and K. R. Brower

(2) Dilution by streams of sea water with lower salinity. Combining eqs (3) and (4) we find
(3) The melting of floating ice. Vmelt = V2 ρ0 /ρW ≈ 1.026V2 . (5)
Existing studies often have difficulty in sorting out these cases, Thus, the volume of meltwater is 2.6 per cent more than that
so that halosteric rise is not always cleanly separated from eustatic of the displaced sea water, and the water level rises. When pure
rise. In case (1), global sea level rise results. In case (2), the change meltwater combines with the salt water, there is a very small volume
in global sea level should be very small, but local effects can be contraction, of order 0.01 per cent or less, due to mixing, but it is
substantial. In case (3), previous analyses have been based, explic- negligible compared to the increase found here. How is the volume
itly or implicitly, on the assumption that the total meltwater volume increase just found consistent with Archimedes’ Principle? That
matches that of the displaced sea water. If that were so, a salinity law refers to weight, not to volume. Although the ice displaces its
change from such melting would lead to no global sea level change own weight of the underlying liquid, it does not displace the same
at all, violating the EOS; indeed, most authors explicitly make ex- volume as the meltwater. Our analysis of sea level rise is good to
ception for cause (3). perhaps 10 per cent, because of the changing physical situation, the
combination of data from sources as different as submarines and
spacecraft, the errors of measurement in these data, the presence

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/170/1/145/2019346 by guest on 07 April 2019

2 A N A LY S I S
of poorly determined impurities on floating ice, the variability of
2.1 Applying Archimedes’ principle salinity in the sea water that provides flotation, and our neglect of
the contribution of melting ice to thermosteric changes. Rather than
Sea ice (frozen sea water) and ice shelves are composed of nearly providing formal error bars, we simply carry a small number of
pure water which has density ρ W ≈ 1000 kg m−3 when melted, and significant digits in our volumetric calculations.
ρ 1 ≈ 917 kg m−3 , more or less, when frozen (remarkably, the den-
sity of the ice makes no difference to the argument so long as the
ice floats). Brine inclusions that are sometimes found in the ice have 2.2 Reducing measured quantities to mass and volume
very little effect. The ice shelves have extremely low salt content. Sea The volumes and weights (reducible to masses) in the previous sec-
ice, formed by the freezing of sea water, has some salt although it is tion were assumed known, but in practice the volumes are estimated
largely purified, through ‘brine rejection’ (Eicken 1992; Shcherbina in various ways that complicate the analysis. The thickness T can
et al. 2003). Some brine inclusions remain, especially in first year be measured by extracting cores, by radar, or by measuring the draft
sea ice. Air bubbles can be entrained in either sea ice or shelf ice, but of the sample, generally using submarines (Rothrock et al. 1999;
they make no difference in our analysis, because only the density Wadhams & Davis 2000). Fig. 2 shows a stylized version of a slab
of the meltwater counts. The brine inclusions do affect the melt- of floating ice in the context of relating volume to thickness and
water density somewhat, though the effect on our results will be draft. The thickness is the sum of the draft h 2 and the freeboard h 1 ,
small because shelf ice totals about ten times the mass of sea ice.
Nevertheless, the effect of the brine inclusions will be considered in T = h 1 + h 2 = W/ (gρ1 A) (6)
Section 6 through reducing the mass of the sea ice by a factor based which is easily solved for W . If the thickness is measured it may
on its salinity, as if it were made up of pure ice and sea water (the be necessary to allow for a lower density (ρ 1 < 917 kg m−3 ) when
latter having neutral buoyancy). The correction will be negligible. air inclusions are substantial, as in frazil or grease ice (Smedsrud &
The density of surface ocean water is about ρ 0 ≈ 1026 kg m−3 . An Skogseth 2006). However, the draft is, by Archimedes’ Principle
iceberg or piece of floating sea ice is assumed to have volume V 1
h 2 = W/ (gρ0 A) . (7)
above mean waterline and V 2 below, with
Thus, if the draft is measured, and we assume ρ 0 ≈ 1026 kg
V = V1 + V2 (1)
m−3 or a like value, the weight per unit area W /A is known. The draft
(Fig. 1). The weight W of the ice is method of mass determination, then, is unaffected by air inclusions.
W = ρ1 gV = ρ1 g(V1 + V2 ), (2) To take into account the effect of air inclusions in sea ice or snow-
pack on shelf ice, we correct volumes based on thickness rather
where g is the acceleration of gravity. By Archimedes’ Principle, than draft downward by the factor 0.9. It should be emphasized that
W = ρ0 gV2 . (3) this correction does not change our conclusion that when floating
ice melts, the meltwater volume exceeds the displaced volume by
After melting, the volume of the meltwater will be ∼2.6 per cent; we are only comparing different methods of estimat-
Vmelt = W/ (ρW g) ≈ W/ (1000g) . (4) ing the ice volume or mass.

Figure 2. A schematic of sea ice or an ice shelf floating. The exposed part
Figure 1. A schematic of floating ice, with geometry appropriate to an has volume V 1 and the submerged part V 2 . The densities are as denoted in
iceberg (for ice sheets and sea ice see next figure). The exposed part has Fig. 1 and the dashed line again indicated sea level. The thickness T is the
volume V 1 and the submerged part V 2 . The ice has density ρ 1 (unimportant) sum of the freeboard h 1 and the draft h 2 . The area A is not shown, as the
while the sea water or brine has density ρ 0 . slab is edge-on.


C 2007 Authors Journal, GJI, 170, 145–150
Journal compilation C 2007 RAS
 Change in sea level from floating ice 147

3 F U RT H E R C O N S I D E R AT I O N S ; change. The next step, typically, is to correct all the values just cal-
ALIASING TO HALOSTERIC RISE culated for the melting of floating ice, which is assumed to freshen
sea water with no volume increase, rather than allowing 2.6 per cent
The sea level rise just derived can be interpreted as a form of of the freshwater volume. Thus, the freshening is ‘corrected’ to re-
halosteric sea level change by regarding the displaced salt water move the contribution from the melting of floating ice, an error. Of
and the meltwater (even before melting) as a unit. Let us explore course it is understood that one would add thermosteric effect, and
this. The mass M i of the ice is one should account for imbalances in evaporation and precipitation
Mi = ρ1 V. (8) (Davis et al. 2005). Holland & Jenkins (personal communication,
2007) have pointed out that, assuming adiabatic conditions, the la-
The mass of the displaced volume of sea water V 2 is tent heat of the melting ice contributes a negative thermosteric vol-
M0 = ρ0 V2 , (9) ume change that will mitigate our volume increase. The system of
−3
floating ice and sea water is open to other heat losses and gains,
while that of the meltwater is ρ w V melt ; ρ w ≈ 1000 kg m . Since and thermosteric effects are commonly evaluated on the basis of a
mass is conserved, grid of temperature measurements rather than on changes of state.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/170/1/145/2019346 by guest on 07 April 2019

ρw Vmelt = ρ0 V2 . (10) The heat gain due to the reduction in ocean albedo when the ice
melts would compensate the thermal loss to latent heat in a few
However, ρ 0 and ρ w can be found from tables of the equation of decades.
state. Thus, on solving for the ratio of volumes, the volume change
could be classified as halosteric change. The result is identical to
that in eq. (5). The same result now appears by two differing analy- 5 E X P E R I M E N T A L VA L I D AT I O N
ses. Nevertheless, in view of its nearly universal neglect, and some
Here we present experimental support for our analysis of volumetric
resistance in the scientific community to accept it, we conducted an
changes attendant on sea ice melting.
experiment. A description of the experiment, including a compos-
ite photograph (pre- and post-melt), as well an estimate of volume
change due to mixing are in Section 5. 5.1 Introduction
To provide an effect that is measurable in a moderate precision lab-
4 P R O T O C O L S : T H E E U S T AT I C oratory, it was decided to use concentrated salt solution rather than
AND HALOSTERIC BUDGETS sea water concentration. It was verified from tables and experimen-
In view of the poor coordination of the various methodologies and tally that concentration/dilution effects make negligible changes of
equations used in relating sea level change to sources and sinks volume. The materials used are described in Table 1.
of water and changes in temperature and salinity, it is desirable to
define a single accurate protocol. The correct protocol for dealing 5.2 Experimental procedure
with the causes of global sea level change is as follows.
The ice cylinder, approximately 9.75 cm long (in this section, we
(1) Measure mean global salinity change. use CGS units), was inserted in the tall glass cylinder as shown
(2) Estimate the influx of water from melting of floating ice and in Fig. 3. Saturated aqueous sodium chloride with blue coloration,
grounded ice as well as from rivers. 26 per cent salt by weight, was added in sufficient quantity to float
(3) Deduct from item (2) an allowance for transfer of fresh water the ice cylinder. The initial density of the brine was 1.197 g mL–1 .
as new snow and ice on grounded ice sheets and glaciers (Davis The initial height of the meniscus was recorded and photographed
et al. 2005). (28.3 mm). The bottom of the glass cylinder was warmed to melt the
(4) Use 2.6 per cent of the meltwater from floating ice as ice and bring the liquid to room temperature. The final position of
halosteric rise (other halosteric level changes are not global). the meniscus was recorded and photographed (34.0 mm). The final
(5) Take 100 per cent of the other sources (item 2 minus item 3) density of the ice-brine mixture was 1.140 g mL–1 .
as eustatic rise.
We contrast Munk’s (2003) approach, which, as is typical, uses
5.3 Calculated volume increase
change in salinity as a measure of fresh water influx. The proce-
dure is first to determine the whole-ocean salinity change (Antonov The rise of the meniscus was 0.57 cm corresponding to a vol-
et al. 2002), estimate fresh water arrival from the salinity change ume increase of 21.7 mL. Some melting occurred before the first
via δh eustatic = (ρ/ρ)δh steric = 36.7δh steric (the unnumbered equa- photo could be taken. The initial volume loss was estimated by
tion at the end of the legend to Munk’s (2003) unnumbered second taking a second photo after a time interval equal to the initial de-
figure, p. 2042), where ρ is the difference in density of sea water lay for allowing the system to settle. This photo showed a further
and fresh water, and δh the change in sea level. Denoting this as eu- increase of 3.4 mL. With this correction the volume increase is
static change, the halosteric change has been translated into eustatic 25.1 mL.

Table 1. Materials for the experiment.

Item Dimensions Other properties
Tall Glass cylinder 6.0 cm ID Calibration: 38 mL cm–1
Ice cylinder 4.6 cm diameter 149.9 g (9.5–10.0 cm long)
Saturated aqueous NaCl solution ∼150 mL Density ρ = 1.197 g mL–1
Scale calibrated in mm >10 cm Attached to glass cylinder


C 2007 Authors Journal, GJI, 170, 145–150
Journal compilation 
C 2007 RAS
148 P. D. Noerdlinger and K. R. Brower

Figure 3. Composite of initial and final state photographs. (left-hand panel) pre-melting and (right-hand panel) melted.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/170/1/145/2019346 by guest on 07 April 2019

Arctic shelf ice in the Eastern sector is of negligible volume
5.4 Theoretical volume increase
(A. Glazovsky, personal communication, 2006), leaving mainly the
The predicted increase of volume is (1.197–1.0) V 2 , where V 2 is Ward Hunt shelf at Ellesmere Island (Scott 2004) and seasonal
the initial submerged volume of ice. Thus, V 2 = 149.9/1.197 = coastal ice. The Ward Hunt shelf has area ∼450 km2 and thickness
125.2 mL, and the predicted increase in volume is 0.197 × ∼30 m (Braun et al. 2004, The Los Angeles Times, 2003 Septem-
125.2 mL = 24.7 mL, agreeing within 1.6 per cent with the ob- ber 23) which leads to negligible volume. Sea ice is divided, on the
servation of 25.1 mL. average, about equally between the arctic and Antarctic (Cavalieri
et al. 2003). Seasonal effects of order ∼2–3 per cent are of opposite
sign, of course, in the two hemispheres, though a bit larger in the
5.5 Volume change of mixing for brine and water
Antarctic. For now we ignore this issue, though at a later date we
By the use of density data (CRC Handbook 1985) it can be shown hope to estimate seasonal effects, which might be measurable since
that the change of volume on mixing brine with water should be geostrophic effects will tend to slow the propagation of the sur-
<0.2 per cent. As a safeguard against error or misunderstanding, face level changes (R. Grumbine, personal communication, 2005).
we mixed equal 25.0 mL volumes of saturated brine and water and A rough total floating ice volume for the arctic may be obtained
measured a final volume of 50.0 ± 0.4 mL. Fig. 2 shows that the by multiplying the areas ∼6 × 106 km2 (Serreze et al. 2003) by
dye is well distributed, yet the volume increase is prominent; this the mean drafts from Rothrock et al. (1999), or about 2.5 m. The
observation should lay to rest any concerns that mixing might have result is ∼15 000 km3 . Doubling it to allow for the Antarctic we
a substantial effect on our results. get ∼30 000 km3 , still small compared to the Antarctic ice shelves.
Our total estimate for floating ice in terms of displacement is then
660 000 km3 .
The area of the ocean’s surface is (National Geographic Society
6 C O N C LU S I O N S
1996) A ocean ∼3.62 × 108 km2 . If 660 000 km3 of ice increases the
Given the substantial melting of sea and shelf ice in progress ocean volume by 2.6 per cent of its displacement on melting, and
(Comiso 2002; Dixon 2003; Alley et al. 2005; Meehl et al. 2005), the it all melts, the height increase (ignoring shoreline changes) would
volume increase found here could add incrementally to the known be about h ∼ 0.026 × 660 000/(3.62 × 108 ) km ≈ 47 mm,
sea level rise from the melting of ice. A long-term upper bound to that which might be of some interest, by comparison with the ∼2.0 mm
increment can be derived from the total volume of Antarctic floating yr−1 rise due to other causes (Munk 2002, 2003; Dixon et al. 2003;
ice, which is estimated (Lythe & Vaughan 2001; British Antarctic Cazenave & Nerem 2004; Meehl et al. 2005). The last three refer-
Survey 2005) at about 700 000 km3 , a value with big standard error ences describe an unexplained component to the observed sea level
because floating ice thicknesses are poorly known (Comiso personal rise. We examine whether part of the discrepancy might be due to
communication, 2005). The approximate nature of such numbers our effect. For a rough cut at this problem, let’s set aside satellite
does not appreciably weaken our argument, because it is the dif- altimetry results as having too short a time base (Cazenave & Nerem
ference in the volumes of displaced sea water and meltwater that 2004), and take the long term sea level rise to be 1.5 ± 0.5 mm yr–1 ,
counts. Nevertheless, we adjust the volume estimate downwards for while the known sources of fresh water are equivalent to ∼0.7 ±
two reasons. First, the number we need is the displacement, or V 2 0.5 mm yr–1 . Assuming the errors are independent, and taking
in Fig. 2, which would be about 0.9 times the volume if the ice were them in quadrature, then, we find that the discrepancy is ∼0.8 ±
pure, solid water ice and the thickness is measured, rather than the 0.7 mm yr–1 . This number is barely significant, but if we take it at
draft (Section 2.2). Secondly, we allow a correction for brine en- face value and divide our estimate of 47 mm total possible rise by
trained in sea ice. Measurements of the salt content of sea ice vary this rate, we get a time interval of ∼60 yr over which the total floating
widely, due to variations in the ice age and thickness, the salinity ice inventory would have to disappear in order to account for the rate
of the underlying ocean surface layers, and numerous other factors. difference. Working backwards, the inventory would have had to be
For sea ice in the Weddell Sea, Eicken (1992) finds about 4–10 ppt about double its present value 60 yr ago. Estimates of loss of sea ice
by mass salt; we take 7 ppt as typical so the meltwater density would and shelf ice exist for the stated time period (roughly 1975–2000).
be 1007 kg m–3 . We therefore, should adjust the density of ∼2.5 per Summarizing the results of Johanessen et al. (1999), Cavalieri et al.
cent of the floating ice by the factor (1000/1007), but we neglect (2003), Wadhams & Davis (2000), Rothrock et al. (1999), Comiso
this as below the measurement errors (Fig. 3). (2002), Stroeve et al. (2005), Shepherd et al. (2003), NSIDC 2005,


C 2007 Authors Journal, GJI, 170, 145–150
Journal compilation C 2007 RAS
 Change in sea level from floating ice 149

Jenkins et al. (2003), Serreze et al. (2003) and the United States well as Todd Arbetter, Walter Meier, Michael Morrison, David G.
Office of Naval Research (2001) we get a timescale ∼50 yr for mass Vaughan, Andrey Glazovsky, Robert Grumbine and Waleed Ab-
loss of sea ice, that is, mass divided by mean annual mass loss rate. dalati for useful information or discussions. We are indebted to
The loss of the 30 000 km3 of the sea ice would yield a sea level Walter Munk, David Holland, Adrian Jenkins and two anonymous
rise of only 2.2 mm, we get a rate ∼0.04 mm yr−1 , which is of lit- reviewers for comments. One of us (pdn) thanks the National Aero-
tle interest. The biggest items afloat are the Ross and Filchner – nautics and Space Administration for visitor privileges at NASA
Ronne ice shelves. Their mean thickness is ∼450 m (Oppenheimer Goddard Space Flight Center, and the National Snow and Ice Data
& Alley 2004; United States Geological Service 2000, 2005). The Center for use of its library.
loss of thickness of large ice shelves is variously estimated in the
range 0.22–1.2 m yr−1 (Oppenheimer 1998; Jenkins et al. 2003).
The lifetime of the shelves would then be in the range 375–2000 yr.
Taking 1000 yr as a representative value, we find that our 47 mm REFERENCES
rise would also yield a negligible annual rate similar to that for shelf
ice. Thus we do not explain the apparent discrepancy with either Alley, R.B., Clark, P.U., Huybrechts, P. & Joughin, I., 2005. Ice-sheet and

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/170/1/145/2019346 by guest on 07 April 2019

sea ice or shelf ice, but we do suggest that carefully prepared sea sea level changes, Science, 310, 456–460.
volume budgets should include the volume changes found here. Antonov, J.I., Levitus, S. & Boyer, T.P., 2002. Steric sea level variations
during 1957–1994: importance of salinity. J. Geophys Res., 107(C12),
Another effect of the volume change, perhaps more surprising, is
8013, doi:10.1029/2001JC000964.
a partial delay in the rise of sea level when land ice slides into the Archimedes, ca. 220BC. On Floating Bodies, 2 Volumes.
sea. The volume of land based ice is estimated at 32 300 000 km3 , Bamber, J., Vaughan, D. & Joughin, I., 2000. Widespread complex flow in
almost 50 times that of the floating ice (United States Geological the Interior of the Antarctic Ice Sheet, Science, 287, 1248–1250.
Service 2000). The effect of the sloughing off of grounded ice into Bindschadler, R., 2006. Hitting the ice sheets where it hurts, Science, 311,
the oceans eventually raises the mean water level as originally cal- 1720–1721.
culated, but 2.5 per cent of the effect is delayed until the resulting Blankenship, D., Peters, M., Young, D. & Morse, D., 2006. Detection of
icebergs melt. (The value 2.6 per cent is based on the original dis- a thick water sheet beneath an ice stream tributary in West Antarctica,
placement, now understood to be less than the ‘classical’ value of Geophys. Res. Abstracts, 8, 09875. SRef-ID: 1607–7962/gra/EGU06-A-
total meltwater volume. Based on the meltwater volume, the cor- 09875.
Braun, C., Hardy, D. & Bradley, R., 2004. Surface mass balance of the ward
rection is 2.5 per cent.) If part of a large grounded ice sheet were to
hunt ice rise and ward hunt ice shelf, Nunavut, Canada, J. Geophys. Res.,
slide into the ocean, this result suggests additional caution over the 109, D22110, doi:10.1029/2004JD004560.
delayed ‘time-bomb’ effect as it melts. (When the melting occurs on British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Council, 2005.
land, without sliding, there is no correction to previous calculations, Antarctic factsheet — geographical statistics, http://www.antarctica.ac.
because the volume of run-off water relates to its weight in terms of uk/Resources/schoolzone/resources/Factsheets/factsheet geostats screen.
density ρ w , not ρ 0 , implying that the whole volume is added unde- pdf
layed.) Let us construct a plausible scenario to examine how big the Cavalieri, D.J., Parkinson, C.L. & Vinnikov, K., 2003. 30-Year satellite record
delayed effect could be. First, note that large ice sheets in Greenland reveals contrasting Arctic and Antarctic sea ice variability. Geophys. Res.
and Antarctica are in faster motion in recent times than heretofore Lett., 30, 1970, doi:10.1029/2003GL018031.
(Bamber et al. 2000; Hulbe 2001; Zwally et al. 2002; Payne et al. Cazenave, A. & Nerem, R.S., 2004. Present-day sea level
change: observations and causes. Rev. Geophys. 42, RG3001,
2004; Siegert et al. 2004; Bindschadler 2006; Blankenship et al.
doi:10.1029/2003RG000139.
2006; Rignot & Kanagaratnam 2006) due to penetration of surface Church, J.A., Gregory, J.M., Huybrechts, P., Kuhn, M., Lambeck, K., Nhuan,
melt, undermining ice or water streams, and loss of buttressing or M.T., Qin, D. & Woodworth, P.L., 2001. Changes in sea level: climate
closer contact with warmer ocean water (Rignot et al. 2004; Alley change 2001: the scientific basis, in Contribution of Working Group I to
et al. 2005; DuPont & Alley 2005). The West Antarctic Ice Sheet the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
has volume 26 000 000 km3 . Suppose a 5 per cent chunk slid into Change, pp. 639–693 (881 pp), eds Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., Griggs, D.J.,
the sea in a short time period (say a few years). The sea level rise Noguer, M., van der Linden, P.J., Dai, X., Maskell, K. & Johnson, C.A.,
would be about 4 m. However, 2.5 per cent of that or 10 cm would Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
appear gradually as the ice melted (we ignore a small compensat- USA.
ing thermosteric volume decrease). Admittedly, a 4 m sea rise is a Comiso, J.C., 2002. A rapidly declining perennial sea ice cover in the Arctic,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 29, 1956, doi:10.1029/2002GL015650.
disaster, but if one is dealing with it, one should realize that even
CRC Handbook, 1985, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 66th edn,
without more ice release, another 10 cm is coming. pp. D-253–254, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
During ice ages, sea ice was more prevalent. Comiso (2002) finds Davis, C.H., Li, Y., McConnell, J.R., Frey, M.M., Hanna, E., 2005. Snowfall-
that the volume of arctic sea ice has decreased ∼9 per cent per decade driven growth in east antarctic ice sheet mitigates recent sea-level rise.
from 1978 to 2000. This figure cannot usefully be reduced to sea Science, 308, 1898–1901.
level change over longer times without an assumption on floating Dixon, K.W., Delworth, T.J., Knutson, T.R., Spelman, M.J. & Stouffer, R.W.,
ice shelves (now notable only in Antarctica), but the implication, 2003. A comparison of climatic change simulations produced by two
again, is that the systematic error of omitting sea level changes due GFDL coupled climate models, Global Planet. Change, 37(1–2) 81–102.
to changing inventories of floating ice may deserve attention on long DuPont, T.K. & Alley, R.B., 2005. Assessment of the importance of ice-
timescales. shelf buttressing in ice-sheet flow, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L04503,
doi:10.1029/2004GL022024.
Eicken, H., 1992. Salinity profiles of antarctic sea ice: field data and model
results. J. Geophys Res., 97(C10), 15 545–15 557.
AC K N OW L E D G M E N T S Gill, A.E., 1982. Atmosphere-Ocean Dynamics, Academic Press, New York.
Grumbine, R., 1997. Sea level, ice, and greenhouses — FAQ,
We thank Josefino C. Comiso for suggesting a laboratory experiment http://www.radix.net/∼bobg/faqs/sea.level.faq.html (unpublished)
to validate the theory, and for comments on ice sheet thickness, as Hulbe, C., 2001. How ice sheets flow. Science, 294, 2300–2301.


C 2007 Authors Journal, GJI, 170, 145–150
Journal compilation 
C 2007 RAS
150 P. D. Noerdlinger and K. R. Brower

Jenkins, A., Corr, H., Nichols, K., Doake, C. & Stewart, C., 2003. Measuring Scott, M., 2004. Breakup of the ward hunt ice shelf, in Supporting Earth
the basal melt rate of Antarctic ice shelves using GPS and phase-sensitive Observing Science 2004, pp. 19–23, National Snow and Ice Data Center,
radar observations. FRISP Report No. 14 (Forum for Research into Ice Boulder, CO.
Shelf Processes, British Antarctic Survey, Natural Environment Research Shcherbina, A.Y., Talley, L.D. & Rudnick, D.L., 2003. Direct observations
Council, Madingly Road, Cambridge CB#9DQ, England). of north pacific ventilation: brine rejection in the Okhotsk Sea, Science,
Jonahessen, O.M., Shalina, E.V. & Miles, M.W., 1999. Satellite evidence for 302, 1952–1955.
an Arctic Sea Ice cover in tramsformation. Science, 286, 1937–1939. Shepherd, A., Wingham, D., Payne, T. & Skvarca, P., 2003. Larsen ice shelf
Kolbert, E., 2005. The Climate of Man – I, New Yorker, pp. 56–80; see has progressively thinned, Science, 302, 856–859.
especially pp. 67–68. Serreze, M.C. et al., 2003. A record minimum sea ice extent and area in
Lythe, M.B., Vaughan, D.G. & The BEDMAP Consortium, 2001. BEDMAP: 2002, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30(3), 1110 doi:10.1029/2002GL016406.
a new ice thickness and subglacial topographic model of Antarctica, J. Siegert, M. et al., 2004. Ice flow direction change in interior West Antarctica,
Geophys Res., 106(B6), 11 335–11 351. Science, 305(5692), 1948–1951. doi: 10.1126/science.1101072
Meehl, G.A., Washington, W.M., Collins, W.D., Arblaster, J.M., Hu, A. Buja, Smedsrud, L.H. & Skogseth, R., 2006. Field Measurements of Arctic
L.E., Strand, W.G. & Teng, H., 2005. How much more global warming grease ice properties and processes, Cold Regions Sci. Technol., 44, 171–
and sea level rise? Science, 307, 1769–1772. 183.
Meier, M.F. & Wahr, J.M., 2002. Sea level is rising: do we know why? Proc. Spokes, L., 2004. Sea level rise. http://www.atmosphere.mpg.de/enid/1nn.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/gji/article-abstract/170/1/145/2019346 by guest on 07 April 2019

Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., 99(10), 6524–6526. html.
Miller, L. & Douglas, B.C., 2004. Mass and volume contributions to Stroeve, J.C., Serreze, M.C., Fetterer, F., Arbetter, T., Meier, W., Maslanik,
twentieth-century sea level rise, Nature, 428, 406–409. J. & Knowles, K., 2005. Tracking the Arctic’s shrinking ice cover: another
Munk, W., 2002. Twentieth century sea level: an enigma, Proc. Natl. Acad. extreme September minimum in 2004. Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L04501,
Sci. U.S.A., 99(10), 6550–6555. doi:10.1029/2004GL021810.
Munk, W., 2003. Ocean freshening, sea level rising, Science, 300, 2041– United States Office of Naval Research 2001. Naval Operations in an Ice
2043. Free Arctic Symposium Handbook, Office of Naval Research. Washington
National Geographic Society, 1996. National Geographic Atlas of the World, DC.
Revised 6th edn, p. 131, National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. United States Geological Service 2000. Sea level and climate. http://pubs.
NSIDC 2005. Sea Ice Decline Intensifies. National Snow and Ice Data Cen- usgs.gov/fs/fs2–00/
ter, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO. United States Geological Service 2005. Coastal-change and glaciological
Oppenheimer, M., 1998. Global warming and the stability of the West maps of Antarctica. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3055/
Antarctic Ice Sheet, Nature, 393, 225–332. Wadhams, P. & Davis, N.R., 2000. Further evidence of ice thinning in the
Oppenheimer, M., 2004. Estimated sea level rise from total loss of ice sheets. arctic ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 27(34), 3973–3975.
http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2004/0615Oppenheimer.pdf Wadhams, P. & Munk, W., 2004. Ocean freshening, sea level rising, sea ice
Oppenheimer, M., Alley R., 2004. The west antarctic ice sheet and long term melting, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L11311, doi:10.1029/2004GL020039.
climate policy, Climate Change, 64, 1–10. Warrick, R.A., Le Provost, C., Meier, M.F., Oerlemans, J. & Woodworth,
Pattullo, J., Munk, W., Revelle, R. & Strong, E., 1955. Seasonal oscillations P.L., 1996. Lead authors of Chapter 7 (Changes in sea level) of Climate
in sea level, J. Marine Res., 14, 88–156. Change 1995, in The Science of Climate Change. Contribution of Working
Payne, A.J., Vieli, A., Shepherd, A.P., Wingham, D.J. & Rignot, E., 2004. Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
Recent dynamic thinning of the West Antarctic ice stream triggered by on Climate Change, 572 pp., eds J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meiradr Filho, B.A.
oceans. Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L23401. doi:10.1029/2004GL021284. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg & K. Maskell, Cambridge University
Rignot, E., Casassa, G., Gogineni, P., Krabill, W., Rivera, W.A. & Thomas, Press, Cambridge.
R., 2004. Accelerated ice discharge from the Antarctic Peninsula follow- Weart, S., 2005. The Discovery of Global Warming, American Institute of
ing the collapse of Larsen & ice shelf, Geophys. Res. Lett., 31, L18401, Physics, http://www.aip.org/history/climate/floods.htm#N 1
doi:10.1029/2004GL020697. Williams, J., 2004. USA Today, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/resources/
Rignot, E. & Kanagaratnam 2006. Changes in the Velocity Structure of the askjack/2004-11-21-melting-polar-ice x.htm
Greenland Ice Sheet, Science, 311, 986–990. Zwally, H.J., Abdalati, W., Herring, T., Larson, K., Saba, J. & Steffen, K.,
Rothrock, D.A., Yu, Y. & Maykut, G.A., 1999. Thinning of Arctic Sea-Ice 2002. Surface melt-induced acceleration of the Greenland ice-sheet flow,
cover, Geophys. Res. Lett., 26(23), 3469. Science, 297, 218–222.


C 2007 Authors Journal, GJI, 170, 145–150
Journal compilation C 2007 RAS