Potential sea-level rise from Antarctic ice-sheet instability constrained by observations

• Published in: Nature
• Main Authors: Ritz, Catherine, Edwards, Tamsin L., Durand, Gaël, Payne, Anthony J., Peyaud, Vincent, Hindmarsh, Richard C.A.
• Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
• Language: English
• Published: Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2015
• Subjects: Antarctic; The Antarctic; Amundsen Sea; Misi; Antarc*; Ice Sheet
• Online Access: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/19120/; https://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/19120/1/Ritz_et_al_2015.pdf

Large parts of the Antarctic ice sheet lying on bedrock below sea level may be vulnerable to marine-ice-sheet instability (MISI)1, a self-sustaining retreat of the grounding line triggered by oceanic or atmospheric changes. There is growing evidence2, 3, 4 that MISI may be underway throughout the Amundsen Sea embayment (ASE), which contains ice equivalent to more than a metre of global sea-level rise. If triggered in other regions5, 6, 7, 8, the centennial to millennial contribution could be several metres. Physically plausible projections are challenging9: numerical models with sufficient spatial resolution to simulate grounding-line processes have been too computationally expensive2, 3, 10 to generate large ensembles for uncertainty assessment, and lower-resolution model projections11 rely on parameterizations that are only loosely constrained by present day changes. Here we project that the Antarctic ice sheet will contribute up to 30 cm sea-level equivalent by 2100 and 72 cm by 2200 (95% quantiles) where the ASE dominates. Our process-based, statistical approach gives skewed and complex probability distributions (single mode, 10 cm, at 2100; two modes, 49 cm and 6 cm, at 2200). The dependence of sliding on basal friction is a key unknown: nonlinear relationships favour higher contributions. Results are conditional on assessments of MISI risk on the basis of projected triggers under the climate scenario A1B (ref. 9), although sensitivity to these is limited by theoretical and topographical constraints on the rate and extent of ice loss. We find that contributions are restricted by a combination of these constraints, calibration with success in simulating observed ASE losses, and low assessed risk in some basins. Our assessment suggests that upper-bound estimates from low-resolution models and physical arguments9 (up to a metre by 2100 and around one and a half by 2200) are implausible under current understanding of physical mechanisms and potential triggers.