Warm Water Melts 'Doomsday Glacier' Half a Mile Each Year, Finds Study (interestingengineering.com) 90
Recent research led by the University of California, Irvine has discovered warm, high-pressure seawater causing significant melting under the Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica. "There are places where the water is almost at the pressure of the overlying ice, so just a little more pressure is needed to push up the ice," said lead author Eric Rignot, UC Irvine professor of Earth system science. "The water is then squeezed enough to jack up a column of more than half a mile of ice." Interesting Engineering reports: A team of glaciologists led by researchers at the University of California, Irvine employed high-resolution satellite radar data to uncover evidence of the warm, high-pressure seawater intrusion beneath the glacier. A statement by the scientists noted that the widespread contact between ocean water and the glacier -- a process replicated throughout Antarctica and in Greenland -- causes "vigorous melting" and may require a reassessment of global sea level rise projections.
In a bid to comprehend the impact of ocean-water interaction on glacial melting, glaciologists examined data collected between March 2023 and June 2023 sourced from Finland's ICEYE commercial satellite mission. These satellites represent a collection that resembles constellations in polar orbit around the planet. They employ InSAR -- interferometric synthetic aperture radar -- to continuously track changes on the Earth's surface. "When we have a continuous time series and compare that with the tidal cycle, we see the seawater coming in at high tide and receding and sometimes going farther up underneath the glacier and getting trapped," said Rignot. "Thanks to ICEYE, we're beginning to witness this tidal dynamic for the first time."
He explained that seawater entering the base of the ice sheet, along with freshwater from geothermal heat and friction, accumulates and needs to flow. This water moves through natural channels or pools in cavities, creating pressure that lifts the ice sheet. Co-author Christine Dow, professor in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada alluding to the glacier in question said that the Thwaites is the most unstable place in the Antarctic and contains the equivalent of 60 centimeters of sea level rise. The worry is that we are underestimating the speed at which the glacier is changing, which would be devastating for coastal communities around the world. "At the moment we don't have enough information to say one way or the other how much time there is before the oceanwater intrusion is irreversible, says Dow. The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
In a bid to comprehend the impact of ocean-water interaction on glacial melting, glaciologists examined data collected between March 2023 and June 2023 sourced from Finland's ICEYE commercial satellite mission. These satellites represent a collection that resembles constellations in polar orbit around the planet. They employ InSAR -- interferometric synthetic aperture radar -- to continuously track changes on the Earth's surface. "When we have a continuous time series and compare that with the tidal cycle, we see the seawater coming in at high tide and receding and sometimes going farther up underneath the glacier and getting trapped," said Rignot. "Thanks to ICEYE, we're beginning to witness this tidal dynamic for the first time."
He explained that seawater entering the base of the ice sheet, along with freshwater from geothermal heat and friction, accumulates and needs to flow. This water moves through natural channels or pools in cavities, creating pressure that lifts the ice sheet. Co-author Christine Dow, professor in the Faculty of Environment at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada alluding to the glacier in question said that the Thwaites is the most unstable place in the Antarctic and contains the equivalent of 60 centimeters of sea level rise. The worry is that we are underestimating the speed at which the glacier is changing, which would be devastating for coastal communities around the world. "At the moment we don't have enough information to say one way or the other how much time there is before the oceanwater intrusion is irreversible, says Dow. The study was published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Floating ice (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Floating ice (Score:5, Informative)
TFA is about tidal water getting underneath grounded ice, though, not floating ice.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if this section of grounded ice destabilises and moves into the ocean, all of the ice upstream in the glacier will rapidly move towards the coast.
Re:Floating ice (Score:5, Informative)
And said ice functions as a barrier for the land ice, greatly slowing down its ability to progress into the ocean.
Also, it's an example of Bad Amateur Science that floating icebergs shed by glaciers don't affect sea level. What's true in the case of a glass of water in your kitchen is not true in the ocean. Freshwater ice, melted and diffused in seawater, results in an elevated sea level. [nasa.gov] It's a small impact (only about 3% that of land-based ice melting), but still meaningful.
Basically: a chunk of ice, floating in water, displaces its own weight in water. At 0C, Freshwater ice is .9167g/cc, and freshwater is 0.998g/cc. If 0.998g of freshwater (1cc) is displaced, then the volume of the ice is 0.998/0.9167cc, or 1.0887cc - 1cc below the waterline, 0.0887cc above it. As it melts, it shrinks back to 1cc, equaling the formerly displaced water.
Seawater at 0CC however is 1,028g/cc, aka 3% more. For a given amount of displacement, there's an extra 3% of freshwater ice volume and mass. This melts to a volume 3% larger than than the displaced volume.
Think of it using a extreme example. Pretend that neutron stars were stable containable liquids and not highly explosive condensed states maintained by gravity, and that you had a bucket containing a thin layer of it at the bottom. You fill the rest of the bucket with a giant chunk of ice. The neutron star "sea level" rise from having the ice atop it is basically immeasurable. That's your starting point. Now let the ice melt. Now the entire bucket is full of liquid. The "sea level" has risen dramatically.
Of course, it's even more complicated than this in reality, because you don't have a separation of saltwater and freshwater, but rather they merge, and the net density isn't exactly a linear weighted average between the two. Close, but not exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
The interesting article about melting sea ice actually contributing a tiny bit to sea level rise due to brine exclusion is talking about ice that has never been on land. It's that which people incorrectly say can't have an effect on sea level rise.
Icebergs shed by glaciers will make a full contribution to sea level rise as that is mass being transferred from the land to the ocean. We've actually remotely measured that happening via the GRACE mission - you can actually see the mass transport over time.
Re: (Score:2)
The GP was talking about "glacier ice that is already in the water", not ice that has newly moved from land to sea.
You've got the Ronald Reagan problem (Score:2)
That's why they tear into that Greta thunberg girl. It's why the Green New deal got shut down so hard and fast. The idea of a massive jobs program that also fought climate change was great. To be fair the people pushing it f***** it up by putting some social justice warrior crap into one of the preamble bills. Once the oil companies and their buddies had a line of attack they
Re: (Score:2)
A better example is an icecube floating on mercury. As ice it raises the mercury level a hair. But would melt into a thick layer of water floating over mercury, the total level being much higher because water is 13 times lighter than mercury. A reverse example is if you have a boat made of frozen mercury floating on water, after it melts the total water level would be lower.
The special case of unchanging fluid level never works unless your floaty frozen thing melts into something of the exact same density a
such anti-science ignorance, U USAian? (Score:2, Informative)
There's always at least one moron who claims this every time.
But the glacier is supported by land and not only water. When that contact with the land is broken it will fall into the sea. Not only raising the sea level. But making it easier for the ice behind it (that it is blocking) to also fall into the sea.
Hilarious that there are still people so anit-science that they think they know better than the people who study this kind of thing for a living.
Re:such anti-science ignorance, U USAian? (Score:4, Informative)
You were in a coma during covid, weren't you? Had you been awake you would have seen/read all kinds of anti-science folks spouting their tripe because they did their "research".
One of the more hilarious items was people saying an anti-parasitic medication for horses and goats could affect a virus. Fortunately for us, many of those people died off.
Re: Floating ice (Score:2)
Factually incorrect.
Ice is less dense than water, so it floats. If it were to melt, it then raises sea levels -- in salt water, which the ocean is.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/news... [nasa.gov]
Re:'Doomsday Glacier' (Score:4, Insightful)
'Doomsday Glacier' lol! more scaremongering ...
While the popular article uses that phrase 'Doomsday Glacier', the actual press release from the science team [eurekalert.org] does not.
Good example of why you should get your science from scientists and not from the popular press.
Sea level rise (Score:2)
Any ice floating in the ocean is going to rise up with the level of the water whether than be the tide or rising sea levels. So as sea levels rise it'll jack up the base of this glacier and allow seawater further in underneath it. Not sure why they call it warm water, it'll could be as low as -2C but then TFA doesn't provide any figures on this.
The Doomsday Glacier... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Are those related to the Four Horsemen Glacier?
I'm hoping we get an article on the Pandemic Glacier, Nuclear Winter Glacier and the Ozone Hole Glaciers.
I
Re: The Doomsday Glacier... (Score:2)
My neighbor once showed me a huge abrasion over his shoulder and chest from a car accident. Swore to me that he won't wear a damn seatbelt next time.
Re: (Score:2)
What debate? The science is settled!
Heathen!
And you need a history lesson. Nothing was done about the pandemic. It flared out on its own when the media got bored after the election despite just as many deaths from it since then. No one has done shit all about nuclear war. And there's still an ozone hole as big as it ever was.
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/... [bbci.co.uk]
Dumbass. AC, good call. You're embarrassing. So stupid. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Re: (Score:3)
...might be melting but what's going on with the Armageddon Glacier? And the Revelations Glacier? We should keep an eye on those too.
First they melted the Doomsday Glacier, and I didn't say anything because I was not a Doomsday Glacier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Doomsday is Judgement Day. "Doom" in Old English means law, judgement, justice.
Book of Revelations (Score:2)
If I got this right, the Book of Revelations was from the Omen movies with the obnoxious kid in it.
The Book of Revelation is actually in the Christian Bible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...might be melting but what's going on with the Armageddon Glacier? And the Revelations Glacier? We should keep an eye on those too.
After reading just the headline, my first thought was “Hell, I need to get through half a dozen fact-checks already. Do I bother reading any further?”
2024. When even an obituary can sound like a sales pitch, for clicks and fucks sake.
Re: (Score:1)
A few notes (Score:2, Insightful)
1) Generally speaking, scientists aren't keen on the nickname, believing the sensationalism stops people from taking it seriously.
2) "Faster than expected". The absolute worst-case scenario is currently sometime in the 2100s. Sure, given the way these things typically go the worst-case scenario is probably what we'll get and we're being given an overly optimistic scenario so it doesn't get dismissed by the mob as 'fear-mongering'. But still, there's essentially zero chance you're going to see this thing
Re: (Score:3)
I am 57
So most likely it will break in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:3)
I take it math is not your strongest subject.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it is.
Besides Computer Science and Physics.
I guess humour is not your strongest subject?
Or even sarcasm?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Only my brain is. :P
Must be the testosterone
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That is how it works mate!
If you are not convinced you are immortal, you probably do not even make it into the 50s :P
And my my mind pretends he is only 16, anyway.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
On 2, FWIW if the glacier was melting uniformly 100 years still puts us at 0.6cm sea level rise per year from this one source. Obviously it is not a linear process, but over the next 20 years expecting it to contribute 6cm rise is quite reasonable-- 15cm in 35-40 years is also quite likely. That is actually a huge impact globally within most of our lifetimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Glaciers melt much the same way you go bankrupt... "Gradually, then suddenly all at once."
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Freedumb (Score:4, Funny)
Strange how they used kilometres instead of miles in the research paper. Any reason for that?
Because it was written for scientists, not Americans.
Re: (Score:1)
Because it was written for scientists, not Americans.
Right, because the only nation to put people on the moon and bring them safely back to Earth have no scientists.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Was it done by "scientists" or "average Americans"...
Was the comparison made between "scientists" and "average Americans"? No, the two groups compared were "scientists" and "Americans", a comparison that implies no American can be a scientist.
Jesus you're thick.
How thick am I? Is that thickness in inches or centimeters?
Re: (Score:2)
How thick am I? Is that thickness in inches or centimeters?
Here's how thick you are, using a song contemporary to the last time NASA returned Lunar soil -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
As a Brick. Does that answer your question? :p
Re: (Score:3)
They used metric too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
This is like saying, "hey, remember back in 1972, how I scored that winning touchdown in my high school football game? I still got that game!" ... it's been 52 (FIFTY-TWO) years. You're 69 years old. When was the last time you could play in a real football game? When was the last time the US even launched a vehicle to the Moon that didn't have *FATAL FLAWS*? The most recent mission NASA sent ... FAILED to prove that it'd be human safe -- https://phys.org/news/2024-01-... [phys.org]
If you've ever watched "Married
certainly (Score:1, Troll)
...it has nothing to do with the 91 new volcanos discovered under the Antarctic ice.
https://www.aurora-expeditions... [aurora-expeditions.com]
Re:certainly (Score:4, Interesting)
Not exactly new, as they were discovered in research done over 5 years ago. Also inactive and under the actual ice sheet, so not directly contributing to the warming of the ocean, which is happening globally. The article does mention that they could become active if the ice sheet thins and reduces the pressure on them, so if your intent was to alert people to a way that the rate of sea level rise could increase faster than that caused by anthropogenic warming then at least you've accomplished that.
Re:certainly (Score:4, Interesting)
1) we're talking about CLIMATE CHANGE which is a process that takes minimally, centuries. A few years ago is basically the same as "yesterday".
2) volcanoes are generally a sign of a location of tectonic activity, magma upwelling and generally hot spots. Dormant != cold, duh? Yellowstone is an "inactive" volcano too.
Look at the location of Thwaites Glacier, and then look at where these volcanoes have all been identified.
See that 'pentagon' of volcanoes to the lower left of the Byrd Subglacial Basin? That is PRECISELY where this is happening.
Complete coincidence, right?
The map:
https://volcanohotspot.wordpre... [wordpress.com]
from:
https://volcanohotspot.wordpre... [wordpress.com]
Look, I get it. Dogmatically, if you're a scientist today both for funding and not to be canceled, pretty much everything has to be linked to climate change. Whatever. No honest evaluation wouldn't see a connection between 'increased warming' and 'massive pack of volcanoes in the same place' as somehow logically connected.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
>> a process that takes minimally, centuries
It used to take that long, but not now.
Re: (Score:2)
1) we're talking about CLIMATE CHANGE which is a process that takes minimally, centuries. A few years ago is basically the same as "yesterday".
they aren't saying that this is due to climate change, they are saying that for the first time they have enough data to graph the phenomenon and that melting is much faster than previously thought, so projections should be adjusted.
i (not a scientist) would assume that those volcanoes have been there for ages, so if they were the cause, factoring in that adjustment would mean that the ice sheet should have probably melted by now, so either our understanding is really wrong, or there are probably other more
Re: (Score:2)
Are you saying the volcanoes are new, or that this glacier has been doing the same for a long time?
I'm confused, because I don't think it's being speculated the volcanoes are new, just newly found.
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone who doesn't want to believe something won't have any trouble explaining it away.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>> it's about faith
Except for the vast mountain of evidence.
Re: (Score:1)
The ecomarxists nuking any posts questioning the Climate Change dogma, no matter how much science is involved, are more certain than climate change. Good on you boys and girls.
Acid rain already killed me in the 80s (Score:2)
The great winter vortex of 78 & global cooling nearly did me in though.
We're all doomed (Score:2)
Doomed, I say... https://youtu.be/V7NlFWh7Sz8 [youtu.be]
good thing? (Score:2)
I always learn so much on this topic (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the most intelligent people in the world are drawn to commenting on climate change articles. Why the most intelligent in the world? Because without decades of study in climate science, they already know more about climate science than actual climate scientists who spend most of their lifetime studying this.
They're like The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy supercomputer Deep Thought, so intelligent it had already deduced the existence of rice pudding and income tax before any of its data banks had been connected.
I learn, for example, how nine paragraphs written in Newsweek in 1975 about global cooling trumps the 50 years of climate science since then.
I learn how because we once had an acid rain problem and we did something about it, scientists are wrong to warn about global warming.
I learn how because we once had a hole in the ozone layer problem and we did something about it, scientists are wrong to warn about global warming.
Etc.
In America we have a bunch of religious extremists (Score:2)
I used to wonder why they go after it so much so I looked into their theology and it boils down to they use the concept of original sin to imply that everyone is guilty and then they force guilt on everyone which causes people to want absolution which in turn causes them to show up at church and they get hit up for money when th
Yeah, but (Score:2)
how many people really live within a 2 foot / 60cm rise zone; 10%?
I say more tractor pulls to keep the crowds entertained.
[/sarcasm]
Re: (Score:2)
>> how many people really live within a 2 foot
Quite a few from the looks of this map. High tide flooding hits a vast area of the Gulf and Atlantic coasts of the USA.
https://coast.noaa.gov/slr/#/l... [noaa.gov]
The key word is geothetmal (Score:1)
But the headlines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> coming from geothermal activity
Actually it said "combined with freshwater generated by geothermal flux and friction".
https://www.eurekalert.org/new... [eurekalert.org]
Geothermal flux isn't water heated by magma or hot rocks.
"The geothermal heat flux is a critical thermal boundary condition"
https://www.science.org/doi/10... [science.org]
Cue the Democrat elected representatives ... (Score:1, Troll)