Arthur T Knackerbracket has processed the following story:
A six-year investigation into the vast Thwaites glacier in Antarctica has concluded with a grim outlook on its future.
Often dubbed the “doomsday glacier”, this huge mass of ice is comparable in size to Britain or Florida and its collapse alone would raise sea levels by 65 centimetres. Worse still, this is expected to trigger a more widespread loss of the ice sheet covering West Antarctica, causing a calamitous sea level rise of 3.3 metres and threatening cities like New York, Kolkata and Shanghai.
It is an extremely remote and difficult area to get to, but the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration (ITGC), a joint UK-US research programme, has managed to deploy 100 scientists there over the past six years, using planes, ships and underwater robots to study the dynamics of this ice in detail. “It was a tremendous challenge, and yet we really learned a lot,” says Ted Scambos at University of Colorado Boulder.
These discoveries include the fact that Thwaites glacier is particularly vulnerable, as it rests on a bed of rock that is well below sea level and is being melted from the underside by warmer seawater. What’s more, the bedrock slopes downwards towards the interior of the ice sheet, so, as the glacier retreats, even more ice is exposed to warm seawater, threatening to accelerate the collapse.
[...] “It’s not going to instantaneously lead to a catastrophic retreat in the next year or the year after, but, at the same time, we are very sure that Thwaites is going to continue to retreat, and ultimately the retreat is going to accelerate,” says Rob Larter at the British Antarctic Survey, another member of the team. “We can’t put an exact time frame on that.”
Ultimately, however, the ITCG researchers think that, by the end of the 23rd century, Thwaites glacier and much of the West Antarctic ice sheet might be lost.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Monday September 30, @07:28AM (30 children)
That's a little over two feet in old-fashioned measurements, and it's quite astounding given the size of Earth's oceans. In the UK alone, thousands of homes and businesses are already precariously close to being flooded on a high tide with a storm surge, even with modern sea defences. This is going to be very expensive, apart from anything else. Southern and Eastern England is particularly at risk. Large areas are barely above sea level, and there are many square miles below sea level, being land previously reclaimed from the sea,
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 30, @10:08AM (2 children)
Those predictions and numbers are probably a bunch of bullshit pushed by the scaremongering bunch with their hidden agenda. For your UK anecdote, don't forget that most landmasses usually sink with time due to gradual compression of the soil due to gravity. Gravity sure isn't going to make landmasses rise!
(Score: 3, Touché) by turgid on Monday September 30, @11:53AM
"A mind is for speaking, not for thinking [theguardian.com]" -- Philomena Cunk.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Monday September 30, @03:19PM
It's usually not very hidden at all.
There's a very expensive problem on the horizon. I know! "You People" should impoverish yourselves and distract yourselves to prepare for the expense. That'll make things a lot better in the long run... for "us".
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Monday September 30, @12:17PM (26 children)
"Very expensive" over more than two centuries! It would be even more very expensive to replace that real estate under non-climate change conditions over that period of time. This is a typical problem of climate change warnings. When you get them to commit to firm numbers based on evidence for serious harm based on evidence, the timelines slip a lot.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 30, @03:53PM (8 children)
frivolous dismissal of warnings about climate change is pretty typical, too. hint- the problems don't wait to start until the glacier has disappeared.
(Score: 5, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Monday September 30, @03:56PM (3 children)
Oh, that is OK - whatever happens after khallow is dead doesn't matter at all.
Party on!!!
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01, @09:53AM (2 children)
You already know I care about stuff that happens after I die - years of evidence that you overlooked. The problem here is that you haven't bothered to show this one of those things that I should care about rather than hand off to a capable future generation. Remember, if you can, that we can't fix every problem in the universe for future humanity. We have to prioritize. And there's a lot of bigger problems out there than a two foot rise in sea level over 200+ years.
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday October 01, @01:58PM (1 child)
>one of those things that I should care about rather than hand off to a capable future generation.
Ah, so it's somebody else's problem, like poverty and suffering. Just keep it far enough away - over the border in space or time and let "more capable people" closer to the issues deal with the shit that flows downstream from your lifestyle.
Gotcha.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0, Redundant) by khallow on Wednesday October 02, @04:38AM
So just because I don't pay lip service to JoeMerchant's hobby horses, that somehow must mean I don't care about real problems? Despite years of posting to the contrary? Look, until you have the wisdom and understanding to know the difference between fixing problems and causing problems, your opinions just don't matter. Here, a big one is simply that we can't make the world perfect for future generations. They will have to handle problems that we can't completely address. It makes sense to hand off problems that manifest in the distant future like climate change - instead working on problems we can address - like poverty and suffering.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01, @09:45AM (3 children)
The end of the 23rd century is 276 years away. There's something wrong with your narrative.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01, @01:45PM (2 children)
that's because you skipped over the inconvenient half my post, silly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01, @05:15PM (1 child)
The "problems" are on the order of two millimeters per year - when it gets started. You have to wait a while to get even part of the effect, much less part of the problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 01, @05:30PM
lol! it was brilliant enough that you dodged it...
... then you hastily tried to brush it aside again. hint 2- 'problems' was plural, silly.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by HiThere on Monday September 30, @05:00PM (5 children)
In a sense, you're correct. But this is a clear warning that long term investments should not be made in that real estate.
Also, "by the end of the 23rd century" translates to "less than 200 years from now", and this isn't a problem that is going to "suddenly appear" at the end of two centuries, it's one that is here now from people living on low-lying islands, and which will increasingly get worse until New York and similar places need to move. (New Orleans should already start moving.)
If you wait, the ways to deal with this will get increasingly expensive. Perhaps investments in technology for sea-steading would be a good idea, but they probably wouldn't be applied until after significant permanent, rather than just episodic, damage had been done.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01, @09:59AM (2 children)
Who makes two century plus investments in sea coast assets who can't handle a two foot rise in sea level? It's not many in the first place - people like the Netherlands's dike system. And well, they can solve it - should they choose to. It just costs a little more.
Also keep in mind time value. Things done now have higher costs and benefits than if they were done two centuries from now.
Only if you choose to build and maintain expensive things right on the edge of the oceans. Choose otherwise (including the occasional move to higher ground when your buildings naturally reach end of life) and it doesn't become increasingly expensive.
(Score: 3, Touché) by HiThere on Tuesday October 01, @01:25PM (1 child)
New Orleans is an example of an expensive thing built right on the edge of the ocean.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 03, @01:38AM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01, @05:16PM (1 child)
276 years to be accurate. 76 years till you get to the end of the 21st century. 176 years till you get to the end of the 22nd century, and thus, 276 years till you get to the end of the 23rd century.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday October 01, @05:44PM
Mmph. I always get that wrong. Less than 300 years from now is a LOT less significant. (I still wouldn't invest anything long term in New Orleans or Vanuatu though.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday September 30, @10:26PM (10 children)
While this is obviously a warning that we will have mass migration from seaboard communities across the globe within the next 200 years (few will wait for the water to lap at their doors), it's also a warning to prepare for that mass migration much earlier. See Jakarta, Indonesia as an example of what to look forward to - 40% of the city is now below sea level, with parts of the city sinking almost 1 foot every year. Overcrowding and lack of natural access to fresh water has led the city to overuse the aquifier under the ground, to the point that it is now almost depleted. This has the doubling effect of waste water seeping _into_ the aquifier space, meaning that the water that most residents depend on is now contaminated.
So, where will all of these billions of coastal dwellers move to once the coast is underwater? Why, former farming land, of course! I wonder what that will do for food security? How much planning might be needed to avoid that little crisis?
These are problems for now, not next century.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01, @10:01AM (9 children)
Why would there be an earlier mass migration? There's an evidence problem here. And most such "mass migrations" will just be at most a few kilometers or so to mildly higher ground.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 01, @11:18AM (8 children)
What makes you think that the sea level will stop rising after 1 meter? 2 meters? Only fools would flee rising waters just to place themselves into the same problem a few decades later. Until sea levels stabilize (assuming that they do rise, and the evidence suggests they are and will), most people will build in a bit of contingency to their move.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01, @12:26PM (7 children)
When? Even hundreds of meters of sea level rise is irrelevant to our future over a long enough time frame. Consider this: the average person moves several times during their life. In the US, it's close to a dozen [movebuddha.com] times. Your 1-2 meters would be over several human lifespans. So just make a few of those moves uphill. It's not a serious thing. Most such moving would be utterly transparent to society.
And that gets me to a key point of this "mass migration". It would be over such long time frames and short distances, that we wouldn't even notice. It would be part of the normal ebb and flow of humans - which already compensates for a lot of problems (crime rate, economics, etc) without a lot of drama.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday October 01, @11:02PM (6 children)
As I said earlier, I think we'll find it a lot more like what's happening with Jakarta right now, only replicated across dozens of countries and billions of people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 02, @03:48AM
And as I said earlier, we're already doing what it takes to adapt in real time to that problem - among many others.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 02, @12:03PM (4 children)
I doubt there's anything happening with Jakarta right now that is related to climate change. And when there is, natural movement of people will more than compensate.
And when I look for news stories about what is allegedly happening with Jakarta right now, the closest I can see is a nutty plan [reuters.com] to shut down coal power plants in developing world markets without adequate replacement power in place. They've failed already to get South Africa to do it and now Indonesia is balking as well. Turns out once again, that First World problems don't get taken seriously in the developing world unless you're willing to back that with a lot of money. Even then, sometimes the money isn't enough.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday October 03, @12:39AM (3 children)
A quick DuckDuckGo for "Jakarta moving capital city" will yield results, including:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/08/16/nusantara-indonesia-capital-jakarta/ [washingtonpost.com]
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/why-indonesia-is-moving-its-capital-from-jakarta-to-borneo [pbs.org]
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-30/what-will-happen-to-jakarta-when-indonesia-builds-a-new-capital/100784566 [abc.net.au]
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-03-07/indonesias-new-capital-in-the-jungles-of-borneo-nusantara/103438328 [abc.net.au] (discusses the challenges facing the project at the moment)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 03, @01:37AM (2 children)
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday October 03, @01:58AM (1 child)
It's also got a lot to do with the draining of their aquifier for drinking water.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 03, @02:20AM
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tokolosh on Monday September 30, @07:31PM (2 children)
Keep fiddling with GHG emissions, in any realistic, or even optimistic scenario, it is not going to stop global warming.
Time to focus on cheap and really effective methods of cooling the climate. Please, ditch the single-minded obsession with emissions.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday October 01, @10:02AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by Ox0000 on Tuesday October 01, @02:13PM
Yeah, like why aren't we just asking everyone to leave their fridge and freezer doors open, run the AC with the doors open. It's innovative thinking like that that we need if we will solve this!
It's a joke
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Tuesday October 01, @03:54PM (1 child)
Don't forget that the Thwaites glacier isn't going to be the only large Arctic/Antarctic glacier melting over the next ~200 some years.
So the 65cm sea level rise from the Thwaites is only going to be part of the total.
We might also want to keep in mind that it was far sooner than the estimates that the sea ice shelf around much of Antarctica completely broke up.
How much of Humanities modern infrastructure is within 50 meters of current mean sea level? Last I heard it was ~80%.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 01, @05:18PM
What does 50 meters have to do with your post? Is Greenland going to completely melt too?