Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

strangeattractors OP t1_j127y9o wrote

Greenland's glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords. 

The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in GGreenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement. 

"For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland's vertical glacier fronts," lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. "But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland's vertical glacier fronts."

20

WalterWoodiaz t1_j129fv7 wrote

How conservative was the old model? 100 times faster doesn’t seem right if the old model was accurate for Antarctica. Is there any way I can see the source of this study?

177

Gopokes91 t1_j12achj wrote

What a shocker that things are happening faster than expected, it’s almost like we’ve passed multiple tipping points and can only go down from here on out. Time to make every day a blessing because eventually things are gonna get worse and worse.

11

MaybeACoder007 t1_j12azp8 wrote

It’s sad. We are overpopulated, undereducated, and harming other species.

If we don’t reduce the population significantly then we won’t have a population at all.

−11

FuturologyBot t1_j12bzra wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/strangeattractors:


Greenland's glaciers are melting 100 times faster than previously calculated, according to a new model that takes into account the unique interaction between ice and water at the island’s fjords. 

The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in GGreenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement. 

"For years, people took the melt rate model for Antarctic floating glaciers and applied it to Greenland's vertical glacier fronts," lead author Kirstin Schulz, a research associate in the Oden Institute for Computational Engineering and Sciences at University of Texas at Austin, said in a statement. "But there is more and more evidence that the traditional approach produces too low melt rates at Greenland's vertical glacier fronts."


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/zr8n6f/greenlands_glaciers_are_melting_100_times_faster/j127y9o/

1

WalterWoodiaz t1_j12cqtu wrote

I wouldn’t say fucked. Sea level rise is bad but definitely not a civilization ending disaster. The worst thing about it is that the people who will be most affected are in developing countries that cannot prepare for it

14

historycat95 t1_j12czmr wrote

Ok, Thanos.

What is the "bright line" that defines overpopulation? Capitalism creates a false sense of overpopulation, when the real issue is that resources are not adequately distributed because it's not profitable.

If trillions of dollars weren't currently being used as a dragon's hoard we could easily live on this planet with enough for all and little impact on the environment.

2

NordicQualia t1_j12dfzb wrote

Uhm... what? Climate change won't wipe out humanity, no matter how bad it gets, but hundreds of millions of people are at risk of suffering a lot from it, particularly in impoverished nations due to drought causing deadly heat waves, food, and water shortages etc. but according to you that is good because then we have reduced the population?

Overconsumption is the problem, not overpopulation. As long as unrestricted capitalism reigns supreme this won't end.

0

[deleted] t1_j12ebm2 wrote

I'm really glad that I chose to retire at 35 rather than 65. And I am meeting more and more people feeling this way than ever before. But could just be confirmation bias, with my current lifestyle and all.

−17

Huntred t1_j12f0ck wrote

Yes, people in developing counties will have a hard time preparing, but it’s not like Florida is going to be able to build a wall around itself. Some places where the dollar-per-unit of costal protection might be able to afford it (thinking NYC), but other places even in the US will have a harder time practically in the day to day (hard to move ports and what are we going to do about New Orleans?) and looking to the future (mortgage/insurance nightmares.)

COVID showed that the supply chain isn’t very anti-fragile and the climate catastrophe is much more impactful.

23

FogletGilet t1_j12fpvm wrote

Yes that's normal because glaciers always tend yo oscillate. The problem is that the absolute amount of ice on glaciers is going down, even if some individual glaciers go up it doesn't make it for the loss.

26

AG2dayAG t1_j12gcrw wrote

The studies are all over the palace its hard to tell. The eu plan Is to charge a carbon tax thus seems like they're taking advantage of the situation to tax people rather than tackle the problem. Why not flat out ban 100+ for yachts and private jets as a start

−21

ILikeNeurons t1_j12hwdq wrote

Preventing unwanted pregnancies is a cost-effective and ethical way to reduce environmental destruction and minimize population growth, and 45% of pregnancies in the U.S. are unintended. Of those, 58% will result in birth. Comprehensive sex education would go a long way, too, and many states do not include it in their curricula, even though comprehensive sex education has strong bipartisan support among likely American voters. Many women at high risk of unintended pregnancy are unaware of long-acting reversible contraceptive options, and many men don't know how to use a condom properly, which does actually make a huge difference. Besides that, it could help to ensure everyone has access to effective contraception, so consider advocating policies that improve accessibility of long-acting reversible contraceptives and help get the word out that it is ethical to give young, single, childless women surgical sterilization if that is what they want.

As for the rest of the world, it would help to donate to girls' education. It might also (perhaps counter-intuitively) help to improve childhood mortality by, say, donating to the Against Malaria Foundation.

All that said, population is not the most significant cause of climate change -- it's the market failure. That's why the single most impactful climate mitigation policy is a price on carbon, and the most impact you as an individual can have is to volunteer to create the political will to get it passed.

And returning the revenue from a carbon tax as an equitable dividend would help a little bit with inequality, while creating jobs and growing the economy.

Taxing carbon is in each nation's own best interest, and the IPCC makes clear carbon pricing is necessary.

Policy changes absolutely dwarf the magnitude of the impact of having one less child.

9

clampie t1_j12kzsl wrote

I read recently about the increase in underglacier volcanic activity in the area.

6

ChalupaCabre t1_j12ntmg wrote

Why not charge a carbon tax so you can collect sales and luxury taxes on the item and then charge out the wazoo to fill the tank?

Or ban, and collect $0 in taxation. Seems like an easy choice!

1

ChalupaCabre t1_j12o5gk wrote

Documentaries I have seen say the old models didn’t include everything they are seeing today.. there are lots of positive feedback loops created that either couldnt be included in modeling or they just didn’t know to include.

Something like all the methane gas released from melting permafrost, which accelerates climate change, which accelerates climate change…etc.

Old model rendered completely too conservative.

4

Shot-Job-8841 t1_j12rfnc wrote

I never said they didn’t know, I said the they were rich enough not to care. If you buy a super yacht it can cost millions a year to maintain and crew: but you can easily recoup that by using it to butter VIPs. A billionaire can use a house to help with business deals whereas a mere millionaire buys it to flip.

4

Koshunae t1_j12rzw4 wrote

Wasnt there essentially a smear campaign at the time by the oil companies, just throwing out opposing and misleading information?

There are places that have kept detailed and fairly accurate meteorological data since 1880, and localized spots as early as the mid 1600s.

The warming trend has been known for a long time, but its been greatly accelerated.

6

LordBoxington t1_j12s9df wrote

Dude, Trump himself, the guy who said it's a Chinese hoax, has literally been spending millions on seawalls to protect property and golf courses he owns that are next to the ocean because even he knows it's coming. Also many of these people have yachts that can sustain them for long periods of time just fine, as well a multitude of properties that will allow them to leave at any time to somewhere safer/better/less affected.

4

hagravenicepick t1_j12t8kn wrote

Good, those polar bears need to go before destroying everything

1

reddolfo t1_j12u4rt wrote

It's not sea level rise, it's the destruction of critical ocean currents, acidity changes, etc. The loss of these threaten the ocean's plankton, responsible for up to 80% of the planet's oxygen, as well as the foundation of the planet's food chain.

141

LordBoxington t1_j12uzrx wrote

I mean look I'm not super worried about it because I literally have no control over it, so I'm living my life too, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here? Whether or not you believe it's real, it is, and if you're in an area anywhere near sea level have fun figuring out how to deal with it while pretending you aren't! Rooting for you!

1

LordBoxington t1_j12we3q wrote

It's not me you should be paying attention to, it's the literal tens of thousands of scientists who have been screaming about it for decades you should listen to.

This is like getting a warning from the entire military that a missile strike is imminent and being like 'they just MAKING SHIT UP AGAIN!'

(Also if you think taxes are high now, wait until we're paying out a trillion a year just to repair fucking storm damage as they get more severe)

1

xXSpaceturdXx t1_j12x9l1 wrote

It’s the domino effect that is the problem. With the melting ice caps, poison rainwater, Global warming, waters going barren of life. it’s all downhill from here. they’re starting to backtrack but not fast enough. We can’t turn the clocks back on the damage that’s been done.

29

xXSpaceturdXx t1_j12xrcy wrote

The rich people are already planning their exit strategy. I think they’re going to be sadly mistaken though. Once we go down they go down too eventually. But you’re right that first dominoes been knocked over and it’s only going to get worse from here. I probably won’t be around for the worst of it but it just sucks that we all have to pay for a handful of greedy people.

0

seanx40 t1_j12y7x5 wrote

So beachfront property West Virginia and Central PA are investments of the future?

21

PaleAsDeath t1_j12zkt6 wrote

"The new mathematical representation of glacial melt factors in the latest observations of how ice gets eaten away from the stark vertical faces at the ends of glaciers in GGreenland. Previously, scientists used models developed in Antarctica, where glacial tongues float on top of seawater — a very different arrangement. "

50

Surur t1_j139f4h wrote

So since we are not going to change policy having no children is the most impactful thing an environmentalist can do, right?

One environmentalist not having 2 children is the same as 60 people not driving? If environmentalists made up 5% of the population and none of them had any children it would be the same impact as if everyone stopped driving.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

6

Yeuph t1_j13hrao wrote

Fortunately as more CO2 is dissolved into the ocean making it more acidic we have these huge glaciers that can keep melting forever injecting non-acidic water to balance things out.

Yay.

14

NLwino t1_j13kjlw wrote

Combine that with the fact that we can counter global warming with nuclear winter, we really have nothing to worry about. All is fine, carry on.

30

Wipperwill1 t1_j13kmm0 wrote

Sorry I'm not going to be around when the ecosphere collapses. Our great grandkids are in for a wild ride.

4

strangeattractors OP t1_j13maxy wrote

“In August 2022, China faced a crippling heat wave that disrupted factories and threatened crop yields — the worst since 1961. Global manufacturers, including Volkswagen and Toyota, were among the companies that suspended operations because of power shortfalls. And some drought-stricken parts of the country are still engulfed by the scorching heat.”

https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/36234-chinas-heat-wave-is-the-biggest-supply-chain-disruption-of-the-year-so-whats-the-solution

Drought also left the Mississippi River so low near Memphis in the fall that barges couldn’t get through without additional dredging and upstream water releases. That snarled grain shipping during the critical harvest period. Colorado River officials discussed even tighter water use restrictions as water levels neared dangerously low levels in the major reservoirs.

In Europe, heat waves set record temperatures in Britain and other parts of the continent, leading to severe droughts, low river flow to the River Rhine threatened 30% of shipping, and wildfires in many parts of the continent.

This is affecting crops all over the world, and there is a threshold at which the Colorado river won’t have enough water to supply California, where most of America’s crops are grown, as well as other states:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/the-colorado-river-is-the-lifeblood-of-the-west-how-much-longer-will-it-last/ar-AA15t0IY

So yea, it is happening in our lifetime.

23

ialsoagree t1_j13p658 wrote

You're probably thinking of Antarctica, but even there volcanic activity is having very little impact.

There are no active volcanoes in Greenland, and no underwater volcanoes for at least the past few million years.

There was a hot spot under Greenland, but that was millions of years ago (EDIT: there may in fact still be a hot spot that is cooling, regardless, a hot spot that's existed for millions of years can't explain why ice is melting now) and it has since moved to Iceland:

https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2982/fire-and-ice-why-volcanic-activity-is-not-melting-the-polar-ice-sheets/

6

Friday_Night_Pizza t1_j13tidd wrote

At current rates, it's estimated that all the ice melting on earth would take about 4000-5000 years. if that were to ever happen, it represents at 225-250ish foot rise in the sea level. It would change the whole globe dramatically

−5

cheezyboi1234 t1_j13whjq wrote

Do note that the ice sheet and these glaciers are different. Yes, tide water glaciers are melting much faster than expected, but they represent a small portion of all the ice in Greenland compared to the ice sheet that is not tidewater. Source: I’m a glaciology student in university

16

Ixneigh t1_j142ut2 wrote

In S Florida sea levels have risen at least 6 inches from the early 80’s to now.

2

norbertus t1_j148v65 wrote

Good, we're making progress. The age-old dream of a year-round Northwest Passage is within reach. This will pay dividends for international trade far into the future.

−3

BSG66 t1_j14c3tt wrote

This is awesome! Wonder if we hairless monkeys will even care?

1

ialsoagree t1_j14ck7i wrote

That plume has existed for millions of years. It's cooling.

In fact, that very research you cited even states that the heat from the plume is feeding the Iceland plume, which is why Iceland has over 100 volcanoes, and over a third of them are active volcanoes (have erupted in the part 50,000 years). Greenland has no active volcanoes at all.

Volcanic activity and heat plumes function over geological time scales. That plume under Greenland was hotter when the ice formed than it is today.

−1

ialsoagree t1_j14ff2b wrote

We've known that there was a hot spot under Greenland for a very long time. We didn't know that it was still active, which is what the research you're citing confirms.

1

Gemini884 t1_j14hnw6 wrote

Information on marine biomass decline from recent ipcc report: "Global models also project a loss in marine biomass (the total weight of all animal and plant life in the ocean) of around -6% (±4%) under SSP1-2.6 by 2080-99, relative to 1995-2014. Under SSP5-8.5, this rises to a -16% (±9%) decline. In both cases, there is “significant regional variation” in both the magnitude of the change and the associated uncertainties, the report says." phytoplankton in particular is projected to decline by ~10% in worst-case emissions scenario.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3

5

Gemini884 t1_j14i1mv wrote

>waters going barren of life

Information on marine biomass decline from recent ipcc report: "Global models also project a loss in marine biomass (the total weight of all animal and plant life in the ocean) of around -6% (±4%) under SSP1-2.6 by 2080-99, relative to 1995-2014. Under SSP5-8.5, this rises to a -16% (±9%) decline. In both cases, there is “significant regional variation” in both the magnitude of the change and the associated uncertainties, the report says." phytoplankton in particular is projected to decline by ~10% in worst-case emissions scenario.

https://www.carbonbrief.org/in-depth-qa-the-ipccs-sixth-assessment-on-how-climate-change-impacts-the-world/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01173-9/figures/3

3

Trumpswells t1_j14t2m3 wrote

IMO, Scientific climate change metrics have been unduly optimistic and overly conservative. Maybe as the rate of destruction gathers momentum, it is simply unfathomable ?

3

CintiaCurry t1_j155dm6 wrote

Small price to pay to have billionaires 🤑🤑🤑at least we have lovely billionaires🙃

11

RonPMexico t1_j1565f3 wrote

We should definitely upend the global economy because these scientists say so. Look how close they were.

−2

yinyanghapa t1_j158glp wrote

So humanity is just going to let a small group of bullies destroy it?

3

Artistic-Time-3034 t1_j158hde wrote

And the people there are happy, it will help open up there economy and lives. Just ask them.

−2

SnooDoubts5781 t1_j159yjy wrote

Dont move to Florida. Kidding you can go.ware a high spf, so hot.

1

BlergFurdison t1_j15fqxm wrote

For those who don't know, scientific estimates - especially those that are high profile, such as, you know, predicting the demise of earth's climate and ecosystems - are conservative by nature. Scientists know complicated models are very difficult to predict accurately in terms of magnitude and timeline. So rather than predicting maximum severity outcome in the near future, they will predict minimum consequences by maximum year. What they predict will - in terms of climate - will be more severe at an earlier year.

In other words, it shouldn't surprise anyone that Greenland is melting faster than predicted. Everything is happening faster than predicted.

6

Murican_Infidel t1_j15h85i wrote

If all of Greenland's glaciers melt, how much would the sea level rise by?

2

Neko_Shogun t1_j15hq9e wrote

¿Picked a bad time to start drinking less, didn´t I?

2

supercilveks t1_j15iu05 wrote

Honestly big doubt, trough out history there have always been lots and lots of poor and desperate people around the world, they ain’t doing shit nor they matter to anyone.
Rich people have governments working for them with a well paid and equipped military.
Something changing in this dynamic is basically impossible. It has been there forever and will be.

1

chill633 t1_j15lslp wrote

>"...but it’s not like Florida is going to be able to build a wall around itself."

I now have a new fear -- that Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida reads Reddit. PLEASE don't give him ideas!

2

Dr-gizmo t1_j15oac4 wrote

The Planet will survive. Now as for Humans that remains to be seen.

1

Unusual-Diver-8335 t1_j163cc1 wrote

Climate scientists: "people, you need to listen to our predictions of what life is going to be by 2100"

Also climate scientists: "we have been off by 100 times"

−2

christianCowan t1_j16a6c4 wrote

Is it just me or can’t we send some water to space just pull a tube and space is a vacuum and will syphon it on up bing bang boom

1

Wipperwill1 t1_j16e08u wrote

Taking 3 examples : The disappearing Amazon Rainforest, retreating glaciers, and the great barrier reef dying off. Suppose all these things are either a coincidence or inconsequential? This is not mentioning the many mass extinctions taking place, rising sea level, or average global temperature rising.

Again, none of this matters to me except academically . I wont be around when the effects really start hurting humanity. I feel a little sad that this is happening but I expect it from humanity. We are much better at reacting to the present than planning for the future.

1

30ftandayear t1_j16g9kv wrote

There isn't really a "point of no return" though. Everything regarding climate change is a matter of degree. Each incremental increase in GHGs means an increase in global temps and that will translate into incrementally more damaging climate results.

That is why it is important to continue working and to do everything that we can to do better and minimize the cumulative effects.

0

30ftandayear t1_j16h7ip wrote

About 23 feet.

https://climate.nasa.gov/faq/30/if-all-of-earths-ice-melts-and-flows-into-the-ocean-what-would-happen-to-the-planets-rotation/

Quote: " For example, if the Greenland ice sheet were to completely melt and the meltwater were to completely flow into the ocean, then global sea level would rise by about seven meters (23 feet)"

A recent study has shown that the existing warming (if we stopped producing GHGs today) would result in about a foot of sea level rise, but that is only about 3% of the total ice mass in greenland.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/melting-greenland-ice-sheet-will-cause-at-least-ten-inches-of-sea-level-rise-study-finds-180980675/

1

Chalkarts t1_j16j87t wrote

*Snickersnort*

It's going to be awesome when the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation collapses.

Humans are screwed lol.

1

norbertus t1_j16q0w2 wrote

> You really did the math on that.

I make weird websites for fun. One of the oldest that is still online is for The National Rifle Association Christian Bible Choir, most of which I wrote as a teenager in the late 90's:

http://choir.faithweb.com/turner_robertson.html

Anyway, ahead of Biden's election, I began collecting notes for a satirical "Cheney-Bush 2020" website -- and got derailed by the pandemic. I didn't have internet at home until I needed it for work (somewhat after the Lockdowns), and when I couldn't go out to get online, well, no new website...

The unrealized project was premised on the idea that after 12 years of amateur rule (between Obama and Trump), America needs a seasoned ruler like Dick Cheney.

Because Dick Cheney has more experience running the country than anybody else eligible for the office.

So then I started thinking about what kinds of talking points might go along with a Cheney-Bush platform, and the "drill, baby, drill" crowd suggested a theme: "Global Warming is Cool."

Among the favorable, pro-business aspects of progress in global warming was a year-round Northwest Passage...

2

MaximillionVonBarge t1_j16q9ic wrote

I can’t believe this is the top comment. Really? How many people think climate estimates aren’t extremely conservative? As most studies are they’re done to limit risk. Wake up. Our science needs our willingness to understand it.

1

SammyGReddit t1_j16t923 wrote

We’re just getting started will have that up to 1000 times faster before you know it. If there’s one thing we’re good at its destruction.

1

earsplitingloud t1_j177kag wrote

Greenland was named that for a good reason. It was green in the past.

0

fungussa t1_j17j83v wrote

No, silly.

Greenland was named by the Norse explorer Erik the Red in the 10th century. At the time, Erik had been exiled from Iceland and was seeking a new place to settle. He came across the island of Greenland, which was largely covered in ice and snow, and decided to name it Greenland in an attempt to attract settlers to the area. Despite the cold and inhospitable climate, Erik's marketing strategy worked and he was eventually able to establish a settlement on the island.

 

The name "Greenland" is somewhat of a misnomer, as the island is largely covered in ice and snow, and there is very little vegetation. However, the name likely reflects the fact that some parts of the island, particularly along the coast, are more green and fertile than others. The name "Greenland" may also have been chosen to distinguish the island from nearby Iceland, which has a more temperate climate and is more green and lush.

0

rixtil41 t1_j1egecv wrote

So although I don't know the exact ways to on how this would work in every detail my point is that it's not impossible to survive and that any attempt at survival is doomed to fail even if only a small percentage of humanity was left.

1

Financial_Exercise88 t1_j1fmyjj wrote

All humanity relies on a precise balance between O2 and CO2 in ambient air. Hemoglobin binds CO2 100x more than O2; it only works as an O2 delivery system because there's a hyper-abundance of O2 (declining currently, FYI). Genetic engineering or O2 supplementation mechanisms require extensive supply chains that won't exist if only a few survive.

And if we (humanity) survive but we (you & I) don't then the former matters little.

1

Financial_Exercise88 t1_j1hd2ce wrote

Can AI come up with an alternative to Hb that we can genetically engineer babies to have before the imbalance ambient air is lethal? Probably. But no one is working on it. It will probably affect behavior & intelligence in imperceptible ways long before humans see it as an issue worth pursuing. And then we depend on animals... we're going to replace the whole ecosystem with genetically engineered variants that can thrive in higher CO2/lower O2 environment (are we going to also change our dependence on the Krebs cycle which needs O2) ? No, I don't believe that is realistic. Supply chains will be long gone, humanity too, before then. Or, we could just tax the f out of fossil fuels. No. Brainer.

1