Contributions of Greenland and Antarctica to Sea Level Rise

A new study was recently published quantifying ice mass lost from the Greenland Ice Sheet (GrIS) and the Antarctic Ice Sheet (AnIS). The study is important because it combines 43 independent estimates of ice mass changes, from satellite measurements to arrive at estimates of ice sheet mass balance changes from 1972 for the GrIS and 1979 for AnIS. Combines, the two ice sheets "lost 11,309 ± 565 billion tonnes of ice between 1979 and 2023, with glacier dynamical imbalance driving 84% of the ice loss and surface mass balance the remainder." This change in total mass balance (TMB) equates to 31.4 ± 1.6 mm (1.24 ± 0.06 in) contribution to sea level rise since 1979.

Cumulative Mass Balance Changes from Otosaka et al 2026

Now 1.24 in may not seem like a lot, but we have to remember that this accounting does not account for contributions from ice loss from mountain glaciers or other freshwater contributions to sea level rise. It also does not account for thermal expansion of the oceans. Accounting for all contributors, sea levels have risen by about 9 in since 1880. I downloaded the data from IMBE and plotted the cumulative mass loss for GrIS and AnIS, both in Gt and in contribution to SLR below.

Incidentally, Copernicus' data here is updated through 2025, and this updated data should put to rest the claim that Antarctica is reversing from mass loss to mass gain. There were was some growth in the eastern (EAIS) Antarctic Ice sheet in 2023, but that reversal has already reversed, and cumulative mass loss in 2025 is below 2022.

Predictably, the usual suspects on social media have been finding alternative ways to spin this. For instance, Matthew Wielicki has decide to reframe this data in terms of the percent of GrIS and AnIS that has been lost. In one post on X, he calculates that this is just 0.04% of the combined ice on GrIS and AnIS.


In actuality, 11,309 Gt is 0.046% of 24.38 million Gt that make up GrIS and AnIS, so to one significant figure that's about 0.05%, though Wielicki here entirely misses the point. The significance of these calculations have to do with closing the SLR budget and making better projections for future SLR from melting polar ice sheets. All Wielicki has done is point out that there is ~2174x more ice than what has melted so far on Greenland and Antarctica that can still contribute to future SLR. And if that happens, we'll see ~65 meters (213 ft) of sea level rise. We're on pace to see more than 2 ft above 1880 levels by 2100, given current rates and acceleration. In another post, To add insult to injury, Wielicki calculated that it would take 120,000 years for both ice sheets to lose all their mass at current rates.


This again is wrong. Wielicki is assuming a linear trend, and even if I were to grant that, it would take about 93,000 years to lose all of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica. However, I downloaded the IMBE data and plotted TMB anomalies from 1979 to 2023, setting 1979 to 0. Just look at the data. Mass loss from TMB is accelerating. Clearly a linear trend is going to severely underestimate how long it will take to lose both polar ice caps.
If I take the same data and plot the best fit quadratic through this same data, then we lose all of the ice on Greenland and Antarctica by ~3900 CE. That's less than 2000 years from now.
Now to be clear, I'm not predicting that we will lose all of this ice in the next 2000 years. This is a projection based purely on a best fit quadratic and not at all on the physics of how ice sheets melt. But clearly Wielicki is being rather foolish in making projections based on simple mathematical forecasts assuming a linear trend for data that is clearly showing accelerating mass loss. I'm quite confident that Wielicki understands exactly why he's wrong here, but he's selling a political narrative. He's not doing science.


Reference:

Otosaka, I.N., Shepherd, A., Amory, C. et al. Mass balance of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets from the 1970s to 2023. Sci Data 13, 1301 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-026-08088-0


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Does NOAA have "Ghost Stations" for US Temperatures?

Was There a "Mike's Nature Trick" to "Hide the Decline?" Part 1 - Misreading CRU Emails

What about Those 50 Failed Climate Predictions?