20 years of satellite data reveal 'staggering' levels of glaciers melting, sea levels rising

A satellite image of white streaks on top of greenish land.
(Image credit: Modified Copernicus Sentinel data (2017), processed by ESA)

Over the past 20 years, glaciers worldwide have lost 273 billion tonnes of ice to a warming world, and this ice loss has driven sea levels to rise at an accelerated pace, according to a decades-long comprehensive analysis based on satellite data.

A time series of yearly ice loss from glaciers between 2000 and 2023 shows the melting ice has resulted in a nearly 2-centimeter (0.7-inch) rise in global sea levels.

"To put this in perspective, the 273 billion tonnes of ice lost annually amounts to what the entire global population consumes in 30 years, assuming three liters per person a day," Michael Zemp, a glaciologist at the University of Zurich in Switzerland, who co-led the analysis, said in a statement.

The findings are based on two decades of observations gathered by several U.S., German and European satellites — some of that data even came from including a few satellites that were not originally designed to monitor glaciers globally. The observations were then analyzed by a large collaboration of 35 research teams led by scientists from the University of Zurich and the University of Edinburgh in Scotland.

This analysis also revealed that the amount of melted ice swung widely across regions, ranging from 2% in the Antarctic to 39% in Central Europe, according to a study on the team's results. Other places witnessed a similar trend: New Zealand lost 29%, Western Canada and the U.S. 23%.

"These numbers are staggering," study co-author Noel Gourmelen of the University of Edinburgh told The Guardian. "They serve as a reminder that things are changing fast in some regions."

A diagram of Earth showing where most ice loss is happening.

A diagram showing the results of the team's study regarding ice loss in a warming world. (Image credit: ESA/Planetary Visions)

Hidden within the results is the alarming trend of accelerated ice loss, scientists say, rising from 231 billion tonnes per year between 2012 and 2023 to 314 billion tonnes per year in the past decade.

"This is really important as it confirms the pace of glacier melting is accelerating over time," Andrew Shepherd of the Northumbria University in England, who was not involved with the new study, told The Guardian. "Even small amounts of sea level rise matter because it leads to more frequent coastal flooding."

"Every centimeter of sea level rise exposes another 2 million people to annual flooding somewhere on our planet," he added.

Scientists emphasize that the amount of ice that will be lost in the coming years will depend on the extent to which human-driven climate change limits pumping planet-warming gases into the atmosphere.

"Every tenth of a degree of warming that we can avoid will save some glaciers, and will save us from a lot of damage," Zemp told the BBC.

A paper about these results was published on Wednesday (Feb. 19) in the journal Nature.

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Sharmila Kuthunur
Contributing Writer

Sharmila Kuthunur is a Seattle-based science journalist focusing on astronomy and space exploration. Her work has also appeared in Scientific American, Astronomy and Live Science, among other publications. She has earned a master's degree in journalism from Northeastern University in Boston. Follow her on BlueSky @skuthunur.bsky.social

  • Unclear Engineer
    As a home owner who lives daily with the effects of sea level rise (and local land level subsidence), I do understand the effects on property and life style.

    However, this article seems to miss some points that are crucial to understanding the situation properly - and tends to use hyperbole to make its points, rather than the more involved science.

    The hyperbole is such statements as "Every centimeter of sea level rise exposes another 2 million people to annual flooding somewhere on our planet." OK, but how serious is 1 cm of flood depth to those 2 million people - not likely more than the problems most get from extreme rainfall events.

    From my perspective, the problem with an increment in sea level rise comes mainly from adding that to the flood levels that are already a problem for me. My defenses against rising water are not unbreachable, and at some tide height, they will be overcome and cause me major damage. So, the issue is mainly the probability of a major damaging flood increases as the static sea level increases. That is a much harder concept to get non-scientific folks to understand in any sort of quantitative manner.

    And, then there are the other aspects of global warming that also affect flooding probability, from both the static sea level parameter and the probability parameter for the frequency and additional rise associated with events like severe storms, wind pattern changes, ocean current changes, etc.

    Plus, sea level rise does not come just from adding fresh water that was previously resting on land above sea level. It also comes from the thermal expansion of the water already in the oceans as they also heat up. So, an article such as this should have had some graphical presentation of the sea level data, preferably 2 presentations. One would be the measured sea level from about 1900 to present, to show the "acceleration" in perspective. The other should show the sea level from the last global warm spell, during which sea level maxed out at about 25 feet higher than it is today. It would also show some even more "stunning" fast changes in the past. And, it would drive home the point that we need to expect sea level to rise above where it is today, even if we stop emitting CO2 completely. There is geological data that obviously shows that sea level can rise as much as 760 times that "one centimeter" even without any human causation.

    So, we aren't going to turn sea level change around just with solar panels for everyone. We need to be realistic in telling the public both what is happening and to what extent we can really change that.
    Reply
  • RockyMtnMan25
    Thank you Unclear Engineer! for your critical thinking and intelligent response & analysis. The author of this article and editors of Space.com could learn from your integrity, better educate their readership, and enhance the value of their content. But I understand that might not fit Space.com's narrative and agenda. Looking at the study, I am not sure about what conflicts there are or might be in terms of the study's funding; however, I do know there are highly complex methods, statistical analyses, projections, and modeling that defy the simplistic, alamist, and selective approach taken by the author and Space.com editors.
    Reply