
Julie Brigham-Grette, University of Massachusetts Amherst and Andrea Dutton, University of Wisconsin-Madison
While U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken draws attention to climate change in the Arctic at meetings with other national officials this week in Iceland, an even greater threat looms on the other side of the planet.
New research shows it is Antarctica that may force a reckoning between the choices countries make today about greenhouse gas emissions and the future survival of their coastlines and coastal cities, from New York to Shanghai.
That reckoning may come much sooner than people realize.
The Arctic is losing ice as global temperatures rise, and that is directly affecting lives and triggering feedback loops that fuel more warming. But the big wild card for sea level rise is Antarctica. It holds enough land ice to raise global sea levels by more than 200 feet (60 meters) – roughly 10 times the amount in the Greenland ice sheet – and we’re already seeing signs of trouble.
Scientists have long known that the Antarctic ice sheet has physical tipping points, beyond which ice loss can accelerate out of control. The new study, published in the journal Nature, finds that the Antarctica ice sheet could reach a critical tipping point in a few decades, when today’s elementary school kids are raising their families.
The results mean a common argument for not reducing greenhouse gas emissions now – that future technological advancement can save us later – is likely to fail.

The new study shows that if emissions continue at their current pace, by about 2060 the Antarctic ice sheet will have crossed a critical threshold and committed the world to sea level rise that is not reversible on human timescales. Pulling carbon dioxide out of the air at that point won’t stop the ice loss, it shows, and by 2100, sea level could be rising more than 10 times faster than today.
The tipping point
Antarctica has several protective ice shelves that fan out into the ocean ahead of the continent’s constantly flowing glaciers, slowing the land-based glaciers’ flow to the sea. But those shelves can thin and break up as warmer water moves in under them.
As ice shelves break up, that can expose towering ice cliffs that may not be able to stand on their own.
There are two potential instabilities at this point. Parts of the Antarctic ice sheet are grounded below sea level on bedrock that slopes inward toward the center of the continent, so warming ocean water can eat around their lower edges, destabilizing them and causing them to retreat downslope rapidly. Above the water, surface melting and rain can open fractures in the ice.
When the ice cliffs get too tall to support themselves, they can collapse catastrophically, accelerating the rate of ice flow to the ocean.
The study used computer modeling based on the physics of ice sheets and found that above 2 C (3.6 F) of warming, Antarctica will see a sharp jump in ice loss, triggered by the rapid loss of ice through the massive Thwaites Glacier. This glacier drains an area the size of Florida or Britain and is the focus of intense study by U.S. and U.K. scientists.
To put this in context, the planet is on track to exceed 2 C warming under countries’ current policies.
Other projections don’t account for ice cliff instability and generally arrive at lower estimates for the rate of sea level rise. While much of the press coverage that followed the new paper’s release focused on differences between these two approaches, both reach the same fundamental conclusions: The magnitude of sea level rise can be drastically reduced by meeting the Paris Agreement targets, and physical instabilities in the Antarctic ice sheet can lead to rapid acceleration in sea level rise.
The disaster doesn’t stop in 2100
The new study, led by Robert DeConto, David Pollard and Richard Alley, is one of the few that looks beyond this century. One of us is a co-author.
It shows that if today’s high emissions continued unabated through 2100, sea level rise would explode, exceeding 2.3 inches (6 cm) per year by 2150. By 2300, sea level would be 10 times higher than it is expected to be if countries meet the Paris Agreement goals. A warmer and softer ice sheet and a warming ocean holding its heat for centuries all prevent refreezing of Antarctica’s protective ice shelves, leading to a very different world.
The vast majority of the pathways for meeting the Paris Agreement expect emissions will overshoot its goals of keeping warming under 1.5 C (2.7 F) or 2 C (3.6 F), and then count on future advances in technology to remove enough carbon dioxide from the air later to lower the temperature again. The rest require a 50% cut in emissions globally by 2030.
Although a majority of countries – including the U.S., U.K. and European Union – have set that as a goal, current policies globally would result in just a 1% reduction by 2030.
It’s all about reducing emissions quickly
Some other researchers suggest that ice cliffs in Antarctica might not collapse as quickly as those in Greenland. But given their size and current rates of warming – far faster than in the historic record – what if they instead collapse more quickly?
As countries prepare to increase their Paris Agreement pledges in the runup to a United Nations meeting in November, Antarctica has three important messages that we would like to highlight as polar and ocean scientists.
First, every fraction of a degree matters.
Second, allowing global warming to overshoot 2 C is not a realistic option for coastal communities or the global economy. The comforting prospect of technological fixes allowing a later return to normal is an illusion that will leave coastlines under many feet of water, with devastating economic impacts.
Third, policies today must take the long view, because they can have irreversible impacts for Antarctica’s ice and the world. Over the past decades, much of the focus on rapid climate change has been on the Arctic and its rich tapestry of Indigenous cultures and ecosystems that are under threat.
As scientists learn more about Antarctica, it is becoming clear that it is this continent – with no permanent human presence at all – that will determine the state of the planet where today’s children and their children will live.
[Understand new developments in science, health and technology, each week. Subscribe to The Conversation’s science newsletter.]
Julie Brigham-Grette, Professor of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst and Andrea Dutton, Professor of Geoscience, University of Wisconsin-Madison
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Come on man. New study? This is the same old stuff…I will not be around in 2060 so what can I say? Tough cookies?
How dare you? Think of Greta and her stolen childhood.
Think about it:
Since ~1970, the warmists have made 48 consecutive wrong predictions to date and
counting – even at “idiot odds” of 50:50, the probability of that happening is 1 in 281 trillion!
The failed predictions of the climate clowns were never plausible – they were not even credible enough to be specious! They were deliberate lies!
Global warming alarmism is the supreme scientific scam, the pinnacle of propaganda,the H-bomb of bullsh!t.
No rational honest person or group could be this wrong, this obtuse, for this long. The global warming propagandists knew they were lying – they’ve known it all along.
OT: In a world where our institutions have been taken over by Marxists and IYI’s, scoundrels and imbeciles, let us enjoy a brief glimpse of strength, purity, grace and hope. Watch the video. Thank you Simone.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/watch-simone-biles-goes-viral-after-landing-move-no-woman-has-ever-attempted
“No rational honest person or group could be this wrong, this obtuse, for this long. The global warming propagandists knew they were lying – they’ve known it all along.”
I agree, the climate change lies are deliberate, and ongoing.
The alkenone proxy method shows CO2 to have been around 1000 ppm when Antarctic ice sheets formed, at the Eocene-Oligocene boundary. Other proxies suggest lower, but in any case, higher than now or in 2060.

The sheets survived periods much warmer than now.
Note the illogic: SOME areas in parts of Antarctica have SOME danger of SOMETIME adding to sea level; THEREFORE all of Antarctica will raise sea level by 200 feet very rapidly. All while ice cores in Antarctica and Greenland show continuous ice with considerably higher than predicted temperatures.
“The sheets survived periods much warmer than now.”
Yes, and there is no reason to believe the Earth will see a 2.0C increase in temperature anytime soon anyway. That is pure speculation on the part of alarmists.
My first thought and I barely read it. Just another recycled turd.
Models again. Stopped reading at that point. When are these educated idiots going to stop playing bloody computer games with yet another ‘tipping point’ silliness and do some actual research in the real world?
What, give up fame, a pointless career, and easy money for hard work and obscurity? Really, Richard, what are you thinking? 🙂
These “experts” completely misunderstand physics and hydraulic engineering. They speak of ice sheets flowing faster because these ice shelves block them, but the driving force for all ice flows and liquid water flows is gravity and the “hydraulic grade line”. The hydraulic grade line is a function of the land surface slope as well as the mass of upstream ice or water which, due to gravity, drives the downstream flows.
If an ice sheet temporarily overcomes an ice shelf, it will only do so until it reaches a new equilibrium hydraulic grade line (HGL). Think of an ice sheet like a river in liquid water. Just because a jam up of ice or debris (trees, rocks, whatever) is suddenly loosened doesn’t cause the overall river to flow a greater volume of water, because other factors upstream limit that flow to the hydrologic inputs (precipitation, watershed area, land slopes, etc.).
When global warmists claim that ice sheets are flowing faster now than at some earlier, more “perfect” era, it can only be because there is greater precipitation and buildup of ice upstream on the same glaciers. The land slope isn’t changing, at least over any human timescales (uplift occurs over millions and tens of millions of years). Therefore the only way that glaciers can flow faster and faster “downhill” is because there is more ice upstream, whose thickness provides the HGL sufficient to drive a faster flow of ice downstream.
Engineering science – what a concept! Who’d a thunk that the global warmists are so anti-science? Well, us, that’s who.
Are we getting in the 2060 range now. Everything is 2025, 2050 or 2100. We got a new milestone. Neat.
It’s the same 40-years out that we’ve been told for 65 years for fusion power. I wonder if anyone in the fusion scam will be embarrassed when we reach a century of promising commercialization in 40 years. Certainly nobody in the Climastrology scam will ever be embarrassed by moving goalposts.
The lead author probably surveyed all the authors and probably figured the last author named to retire from professional work would by 2059. So 2060 is probably a safe “reputation expiration date” for all of them.
Could, might, may, possibly. All the usual stuff.
“Are we getting in the 2060 range now. Everything is 2025, 2050 or 2100.”
The Climate Czar, John Kerry, says we only have nine years left before Climate Armageddon, so that puts the deadline right around 2030.
We are going to hold you to that prediction, John.
We can add this failed prediction to all the other failed climate change predictions uttered by the alarmists. They haven’t gotten one right yet, and I’ll go out on a limb here, and say they won’t get any better at prediction in the future because they have it all wrong to begin with. They see what they want to see, not what is there, so they make predictions that don’t represent reality.
“…can…” “…might ” ” … may… ” …could…”
If ifs and ands were pots and pans there’d be plenty of work for the tinkers.
Polar Portal shows Greenland just a little below average. Arctic Sea Ice News shows Antarctic Ice above average and Arctic Ice just a whisker below average but trending towards average.
Oh no, don’t introduce facts into the discussion, this is all about politics.
or my favorite
“if frogs had wings, they wouldn’t bump their ass a’hoppin”
prepare for a runaway acceleration of hysteria rise as we approach the next meeting of the UN climate comedy show . latest state of the art computer models project 200 feet of sea level rise by 2100 unless we all move to Paris . we must do it for the children
$4million gets you a could ; another $4 million gets you a would .
A new modeling effort with a dozen authors on the paper. How that qualifies as a “study” is beyond my ken. What’s to study besides how to tweak the parameters to get the desired results?
Don’t knock it, Lance, it’s started already. In March 2021 the mean sea level was 2 inches lower than the first recording in 1914 but in April 2021 it’s risen over 4 inches:
http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml
I’ve been wondering when it was gonna start.
Mean Sea Level and the supposed increases are mathematical artifices with no bearing on reality. They are generated by satellite readings combined using models that claim to improve accuracy by averaging points and come up with readings claiming accuracy on the order of mm; again proving the vast majority of climate scientist willfully ignore the most basic concepts of precision vs. accuracy and how to account for error. The fact is physical measurements of physical locations along actual sea shores show no sign of increasing. The same holds true for this paper the basis of which is countless other papers all modelling a melt that can’t be measured and is pure modelling nonsense the impact of which is easily overridden by changes in estimates of total snowfall on the continent (which in theory will increase with climate change) or changes in the rate at which the continent is sinking. Changes in either assumption being capable of swamping the models estimate.
The lies-per-line rate was pretty high in this one. And the entire paper is based on more computer modeling, the authors proudly proclaim it! This is toilet paper, bird cage liner, packing material, what have you, until they can locate some actual physical evidence. hint: computer games, even if you print out the results, are not evidence.
Second part of my comment: If this old world had any catastrophic “tipping points” it would have tipped long ago, as in billions of years, and we wouldn’t even be sitting here to discuss it. Since we are, it doesn’t.
I could take a sentence-by-sentence review and point out all the lies (if they have no supporting physical evidence, it’s a lie), but I could go on longer than this little press release.
But I do gotta say, sea level rise of 2.6″/year? Not that there is any physical evidence that has happened or even could happen, but even if it does, I think I can walk faster than that. Again, not catastrophic.
isn’t that faster than sea level rise 12000 ya coming out of the last glaciation when North American ice melted ?
“This is toilet paper, bird cage liner, packing material,”
Come On Man, don’t hold back, tell us what you really think.
“and we wouldn’t even be sitting here to discuss it.”
Well, I would. I am currently well over 100 ft. above current sea level. If sea levels had risen 100 feet extra at any time, it would not have affected me at all. Just luck, I suppose.
“The lies-per-line rate was pretty high in this one.”
Quote Of The Day!
Red94ViperRT10 wins the thread.
The Warmunists constantly proclaim “…the end of Life…”, so it doesn’t matter how far above sea level your current location, if all life had ended at that “tipping point” however long ago, none of us would be sitting here. Q.E.D.
“Second part of my comment: If this old world had any catastrophic “tipping points” it would have tipped long ago, as in billions of years, and we wouldn’t even be sitting here to discuss it. Since we are, it doesn’t.”
That’s right.
Do 91 volcanoes have anything to do with this?
Only a few are active and two that have been studied in some detail, it is an uncertain area because except for two Volcanoes, there is little information available to know what effect they have on the glaciers in their respective regions.
If they were actually ‘active,’ one could expect them to melt a hole and be spewing ejecta above the ice. However, even dormant volcanoes commonly have thermal activity such as geysers or mud pots.
True. For example, 8967-foot stratovolcano Mt. Melbourne. Geothermal heat flow there has formed an ecosystem of mosses and liverworts, which grow between fumaroles, ice towers and ice hummocks. Mosses are particularly common in the protected Cryptogam Ridge area, within and south of the summit caldera.
This type of vegetation is found at other Antarctic volcanoes, developing when geothermal heat melts snow and ice, which meltwater allows plants to grow in the cold environment.
Now is that (what was/is/will be the effect of those dormant volcanoes under the ice?) a question worth consuming research money? What would the answer(s) to that(those) question(s) tell us that we don’t already know?
There are TWO active Volcanoes that are materially contributing to the melting of two Glaciers, based on PUBLISHED science research, there are probably OTHER Volcanoes contributing to the melting in Western Antarctica but too many wanna be planetary saviors stay in their warm office making up a bunch of modeling scenarios about melting glaciers and warn the world of imminent drowning chicken little baloney, thus we have too little on site research on Volcanoes effect on glaciers.
Most likely. They have apparently recently discovered what they think is an active volcano directly beneath Pine Island glacier, which is one of the melting glaciers they constantly whine about. One of the heat flux maps of W. Antarctica shows one of the two highest heat fluxes at that very location. The other high flux is of similar size and strength and lies beneath the headwaters of Thwaites in the Transantarctic Mountains, another glacier they whine about.
The study about Pine Island volcano
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04421-3
The heat flux map. The two pink spots are the highest fluxes and are Pine Island and headwaters of Thwaites
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/New-heat-flow-map-of-Antarctica-based-on-revised-data-sets-For-details-see-the-text_fig2_340086938
I guess they’re really light purple instead of pink.
Wouldn’t/Shouldn’t that be “…headices…”? (Tongue firmly in cheek.)
The problem with a volcano under the ice is the melting can’t be blamed on human activities. Of course, that doesn’t stop them from wringing their hands and blaming humans anyway.
Jim
At last count, over 138 had been discovered. Some lie outside West Antarctica’s stretch of the Ring of Fire.
There COULD be a problem in the distant future! Hurry up and act now, do as I tell you. They keep beating a dead horse.
And regardless what the research reveals, I still believe adaptation (something you do after the effects have begun to affect you) will be far cheaper than mitigation (something you do ahead of time to change the conditions to prevent something from happening, and since we don’t know for sure what’s going to happen, what are we trying to prevent?). So, relax, everybody, even in the face of 60 meters of sea level rise, it still will turn out to be cheaper and/or more effective to move everyone (yes, even if it’s as many as 40 million people) to higher ground than it would be to cease combustion of all fossil fuels in an effort to prevent that 60 meters of sea level rise, especially since we have been pretty much assured by non-corrupted research, that reduction of CO2 emissions will have little to no effect on future atmospheric temperatures.
Until they learn the difference between carbon and CO2, the gas of life which is already in short supply, they can’t pretend to be doing science. They’re just fear mongering. There are very few places emitting “carbon”. 1st they must prove that 1.5 or even 2 degrees in temperature increase will cause any part of what they claim, that fat into the future.
…and even if it does cause what they claim it will cause, will that actually be a bad thing?
Yes, quite right. So far, I have seen nothing but beneficial outcomes from the small amount of warming and the CO2 increase. Our planet has been gobbling up CO2 quite fast, geologically. Surely that is a far greater danger to life on Earth.
In the parts of the Antarctic mentioned, it neither rains nor melts at the surface, a fact that should be known by “experts.” Temperatures of the last interglacial exceeded the temperatures of even the wildest projections for 2060. But noting such facts would interfere with the political narrative. Got to keep that funding coming.
Proposed for approval:
JAFTP: Just Another Fabricated Tipping Point (p.g. version)
JAFFTP
New Zealanders call Aucklander’s JAFAS.
Work that out ,
Joel,
Yes but that would be the almost-allegedly-mature-audience version. Like Disney 2022.
Enough said
“followed by scientific review of the model output diagnostics”
What in Pete’s name does this mean? A “scientific review”? What is that?
Translation. We reviewed model outputs then calibrated the diagnostic product to maximize future grant opportunities while minimizing risk of any potential authentic science now and in the future.
Exactly
Word salad. Sciencey drivel.
Scientism!
The rest of that web site is just as bad: https://www.cesm.ucar.edu/
All that water will move towards the equatorial bulge, the planet rotation will slow down, day will be 25 hours, year will be 350 days long, and have 50 weeks, so if you are paid weekly you will loose 2 weeks pay.
Now that should get you really worried.
Nah, by 2060, I’ll be voting for Democrats regularly (i.e. dead).
But I imagine that they will still be paying the Covid 19 stimulus payments in 2060, don’t you think?
You could get an extra hour of sleep though, so not all bad.
loose or lose?
By 2060, after another forty years of global cooling, the quantities of ice building up on Antarctica will be such that ‘experts’ will be worrying about the wobbling Earth axis and speculate that the planet could even be nudged out of its orbit. Plus ca change …..
Oh, dear . . .
Yet another warning of an impending catastrophe if we don’t do xxxxx (insert a favorite action here) right away.
I will add it to my ever-growing file of such.
xxxxx is always the same Gordon. Stop burning fossil fuels to destroy western civilization and install a permanent socialist regime.
Klaus Schwab and his cronies will own everything and they’ll be happy.
G’day Rich,
“xxxxx is always the same” Spot on.
In the first part of the 1970’s it was a coming ice age. STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER’s ‘cure’ – stop using fossil fuels. By the late 70’s it was global warming – and his ‘cure’ was – stop using fossil fuels.
Well, Rich, I will offer this as a different example:
There will be a catastrophic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus if we don’t all wear masks.
In Antarctica, CO2 has a cooling effect, should we stop emitting CO2 to save Antarctica ?
No, better not….. 😀
They don’t even study existing papers about their research object 😀
The Warmists can’t even keep their lies straight.
I wonder if that included the fact that ice melts above 0 deg. C
Or that the ice surface slopes upwards from sea level to 4,000m, and that the ice volume increases towards the interior?
Antarctica covers 14.2 E6 km^2 (NBS equivalents: 20 * Texas, 2,768 * Delaware or 163,218 * Manhattan) with an average ice cap thickness of 1.9 km for a volume of 2.698 E7 km^3. (L*W*H math)
Ice has a density of 9.2 E11kg/km^3. (engineering)
The Antarctic ice cap (NOT sea ice!) contains 2.482 E19 kg of ice, 2.482 E16 tonne, 24.82 E6 Gt. (science)
Between 2002 and 2012 the Antarctic ice cap “lost” about 1,200 Gt or a decrease of 0.0048%, 48 ppm, per decade. (technology)
At this rate the ice cap will be all gone in 206,850 years. (more math)
I don’t plan on waiting around.
You?
Every year the SEA ICE swings from around 3E6 km^2 during summer to 14E6 km^2 (doubling in size) during winter. (technology)
Thwaites glacier is 192,000 km^2 or about 1.3% of the ice cap. Yawn!!!!!
Please don’t rob them of their tipping point.
Their tenure and promotion may depend on that tipping point.
volume wise, Thwaites is a much smaller % than that of the entire AIS. East Antarctic Ice sheet is vast, thick (2-3 km) and quite stable.
Basically what the climate fraudsters are doing is using Thwaites and Pine Island mass loss rates and saying, “If we extrapolate these Thwaites ice mass loss rates increasingly in a model across the entire AIS, then we’re doomed.”
Every single friggin day for the last 33 years.
What “Current rate of warming” hasn’t it gone negative this month? I have been listening to this crap for 35 years. How much garbage can these A-holes spew. Pretty soon calling someone a scientist will be an insult.
Not just this month. The peak of the current warming was in the 1930s, it’s been a cooling trend since then.
“How much garbage can these A-holes spew.”
It seems to be endless.
it seems that the average summer temperature is around -20F at the south pole. 2 degrees C warming would not even take the temperatures to 0F, This CO2 must be magic stuff to make ice melt in negative temperatures.
Banging the Arctic-Ice-Is-Melting drum has gotten tiresome, and has lost that Alarmappeal, so hang on, here’s a brand new drum – the Antarctic-Ice-Is-Melting, and it’s an even bigger, louder, and scarier sounding drum. Perfect!
They see a healthy glacier calving icebergs and think it is the sign of a dying one. The worst though is when they use the law of large numbers on the temperature record. There are no climate temperature measurements, accurate to hundredth’s of a degree, taken in the 1700’s, 1800’s or even most of the 1900’s
If this didn’t happen regularly, then all the water on the planet would windup frozen in the Antarctic. The rest of the planet would be desert–like Mars.
Jim
It’s amazing how widespread this fallacy is among Alarmists. A glacier calves because it is growing, not melting.
Idiots. The whole thing is filled with similar dreck but this one stands out.
It’s all based on magical thinking, that of human CO2 releases being a magical control knob to dial temps up and down.
“Scientists have long known that the Antarctic ice sheet has physical tipping points, beyond which ice loss can accelerate out of control.”
————————
Scientists? No, that’s Hollywood.
And if they were actual tipping points then surely it should be “will” rather than “can”, and there would be geological evidence of such events.
Biden looses to Ayatollah.
According to the researchers from the University of California, Death Valley at 134.1°F is NOT the hottest place on Earth: New data shows Iran’s Lut Desert is even warmer, with surface temperatures of up to 177.4°F
All those who sponsor acts of terror against innocent civilians, women & children included, will eventually find themselves in a very warm place indeed.
Vuk, you overlook the fact that those University of California “researchers” did not use the proper conversion factor between Iranian °F and °F in English-speaking countries.
The lowest natural temperature ever directly recorded at ground level on Earth is −89.2 °C (−128.6 °F; 184.0 K) at the Soviet Vostok Station in Antarctica on 21 July 1983 by ground measurements.
So now, we can calculate the Earth’s average temperature. (177.4 – 128.6) /2 = 24.4
Oh look. The Earth’s average temp is below freezing.
Having done that now let’s look at at areal averaging of temperatures.
Then again, maybe we should follow President Biden’s lead and not “follow the science”.
That is an example of why using a daily mid-range value is unfit for determining ‘average’ daily temperatures.