Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Ice Loss Projections! :saxophone: - Coggle Diagram
Ice Loss Projections!
:saxophone:
How they are determined
IPCC models based on 4 emission/radiative forcing scenarios
RCP8.5: Worst case Scenario (4.9 degC increase by 2100)
RCP2.6:Best Case Scenario (1.5degC increase by 2100)
RCP4.5 & RCP6.0: The inbetweeners
Models based on changes in ice thickness changes in a NA glacial area similar to other glacial mountain regions
Models 3 areas: Coast, interior, Rockies (Mountains) for their susceptibility/resistance to greenhouse forcings
Uses climate :recycle: projections based on 6 'reliable' models known as GCMs
Consequent impacts of discharge, area & volume on water availability :potable_water:, the hydrological cycle:ocean:, aquatic habitats :tropical_fish:, hydroelectric power, tourism and recreation :surfer: are also considered
Uncertainties/Sources of error
Models lack a physical analysis of :male-scientist::skin-tone-6: glacier dynamics
Data is limited based on timescale only uses data from 1980-2005. The rest is based on projections/models that could differ spatio-temporally :space_invader:
RCP2.6 uncertainties (based on the size of error bars in figure 3) are much more significant than RCP8.5 uncertainties
The other models (RCP4.5 &RCP6.0) show similar uncertainties (based on the size of error bars in figure 3)
Outliers?
Quote from the paper:
Until midcentury (⇠2050), the fate of all glaciers in this area is virtually independent of the emission scenario and climate model used for the projections.
However, in the interior by 2040, the ice area and volume decrease to ~50% and ~40% respectively using RCP8.5 and to ~60% and ~45% respectively using RCP2.6.
Hence, the interior presents an outlier for this statement in that the fate of the glaciers are dependent on the emission scenario :check:
This may be owing to the fact that the interior is the most susceptible to change :warning: