Continental mass change from GRACE over 2002–2011 and its impact on sea level
- 797 Downloads
Present-day continental mass variation as observed by space gravimetry reveals secular mass decline and accumulation. Whereas the former contributes to sea-level rise, the latter results in sea-level fall. As such, consideration of mass accumulation (rather than focussing solely on mass loss) is important for reliable overall estimates of sea-level change. Using data from the Gravity Recovery And Climate Experiment satellite mission, we quantify mass-change trends in 19 continental areas that exhibit a dominant signal. The integrated mass change within these regions is representative of the variation over the whole land areas. During the integer 9-year period of May 2002 to April 2011, GIA-adjusted mass gain and mass loss in these areas contributed, on average, to −(0.7 ± 0.4) mm/year of sea-level fall and + (1.8 ± 0.2) mm/year of sea-level rise; the net effect was + (1.1 ± 0.6) mm/year. Ice melting over Greenland, Iceland, Svalbard, the Canadian Arctic archipelago, Antarctica, Alaska and Patagonia was responsible for + (1.4±0.2) mm/year of the total balance. Hence, land-water mass accumulation compensated about 20 % of the impact of ice-melt water influx to the oceans. In order to assess the impact of geocentre motion, we converted geocentre coordinates derived from satellite laser ranging (SLR) to degree-one geopotential coefficients. We found geocentre motion to introduce small biases to mass-change and sea-level change estimates; its overall effect is + (0.1 ± 0.1) mm/year. This value, however, should be taken with care owing to questionable reliability of secular trends in SLR-derived geocentre coordinates.
KeywordsGRACE Time-variable gravity Mass variation Sea level Geocentre
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Baur O (2012) On the computation of mass-change trends from GRACE gravity field time-series. J Geodyn. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2012.03.007
- Baur O, Kuhn M, Featherstone WE (2012) GRACE-derived linear and non-linear secular mass variations over Greenland. In: Sneeuw N, Novák P, Crespi M, Sansò F (eds) VII Hotine-Marussi symposium on mathematical geodesy, IAG series 137. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg, pp 381–386Google Scholar
- Bindoff NL et al (2007) Observations: oceanic climate change and sea level. In: Solomon S (eds) IPCC climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 385–432Google Scholar
- Cheng MK, Tapley BD, Ries JC (2010) Geocenter variations from analysis of SLR data. IAG Commission 1 Symposium 2010. Reference Frames for Applications in Geosciences (REFAG2010), Marne-La-Vallee, France, 4–8 Oct 2010Google Scholar
- Flechtner F (2007) AOD1B product description document for product releases 01 to 04 (Rev 3.1). Technical report, GeoForschungszentrum PotsdamGoogle Scholar
- Jacob T, Wahr J, Pfeffer WT, Swenson S (2012) Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps to sea level rise. Nature. doi:10.1038/nature10847
- Jekeli C (1981) Alternative methods to smooth the Earth’s gravity field. Rep 327, Department of Geod Sci and Surv, Ohio State University, ColumbusGoogle Scholar
- McCarthy DD, Petit G (2004) IERS conventions (2003). IERS technical note 32Google Scholar
- Rietbroek R, Fritsche M, Brunnabend S-E, Daras I, Kusche J, Schröter J, Flechtner F, Dietrich R (2011) Global surface mass from a new combination of GRACE, modelled OBP and reprocessed GPS data. J Geodyn. doi:10.1016/j.jog.2011.02.003
- Riva REM, Gunter BC, Urban TJ, Vermeersen BLA, Lindenbergh RC, Helsen MM, Bamber JL, van de Wal RSW, van den Broeke MR, Schutz BE (2009) Glacial isostatic adjustment over Antarctica from combined ICESat and GRACE satellite data. Earth Planet Sci Lett 288: 516–523. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2009.10.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Wagner CA, McAdoo DC (2011) Error calibration of geopotential harmonics in recent and past gravitational fields. J Geod. doi:10.1007/s00190-011-0494-7