
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.
Could we be any more doomed?
So one of the authors is at U. Mass., Amherst. That says a lot because in MA, you don’t dare dissagree with the climate emergency religion. Very few people in this state would openly dissagree. I do because I don’t give a dam if anyone here doesn’t like it. If you’re in government, academia and most businesses you are required to be a member of the new faith.
Tipping points re CO2: every year since it was first set at 1995, then the relentless march as the calendar overwhelmed the “tip”. And all those coastal residents buying up all the bathing suits to swim to dry land, ala Water World. Webbed feet predictions even.
Just shows the world is rapidly returning the the normal pre-Covid Hysteria world.
I’ve updated the graphics to include CO2 and the Trend in Temperatures.
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
In my opinion, this data set is undeniable proof that if you isolate the impact of CO2 on Temperature by controlling for the Urban Heat Island Effect and Water Vapor you can demonstrate that CO2 does not impact temperatures in the lower Troposphere.
These graphics also highlight how any causative relationship between CO2 and Temperature is basically non-existent, and if you place CO2 and Temperature in a Multi-Variable Linear Regression Modeling Program such as R, SAS, or even Excel you will get a non-significant R-Squared and coefficient on CO2.
Lastly, I put a regression line on Temperature. You can see that:
1) Some Months are (+) some months are (-)
2) The high volatility of the data make the slope basically meaningless
3) Climate Alarmists have no answers for the evidence I’ve provided with these graphics. Even their nonsensical slope arguments are debunked with those charts. I have more (-) slopes than they have (+), but the fact that the same location has both (+) and (-) Slopes depending on the month pretty much proves regression slopes are useless in this analysis.
Here is the Evidence:
https://imgur.com/a/CDasqHH
My reply:
https://youtu.be/lwYdnHEd_fI
We used a different “S” word when I was in the Army.
I nominate “Tipping Point” as being the most overused phrase in 2020.
I have a question:
We’re always hearing that we have to ACT NOW! That the status quo is BAD and we have to CHANGE THINGS.
So here’s my question:
What is the desired end state? Exactly what temperature and what CO2 concentration is the target? All the years of screaming, not once have I heard anyone articulate the end state we need to achieve.
Thank you TonyG. I agree with your post 100%. I wrote the following months ago and would like to share it with you and others. I am not trying to steel your thunder but rather make it louder. I welcome anyone’s critique of the following.
Computer models predicting a climate catastrophe are nothing more than artwork created to produce an emotion.
Painted with a brush that is bent, with paint that frequently changes colors, on canvas that is stretched to the breaking point.
Where the canvas is a computer monitor, the brush is a mouse and the carefully selected paint is the data. To the connoisseurs of art, they are a masterpiece.
If today, CO2 remains the go to gas to control to prevent this climate catastrophe, and we continue to engineer the contents of the atmosphere, any engineer will state that, a target is necessary. With out a target, how can we apply engineering methods?
You do believe that controlling the contents of our atmosphere is an act of engineering, do you not?
from wikiopedia:
Climate engineering or climate intervention, commonly referred to as geoengineering, is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climate system. The most prominent subcategories of climate engineering are solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Solar radiation management refers to offsetting the warming effect of greenhouse gases by reflecting more solar radiation (sunlight) back into space. Carbon dioxide removal refers to removing carbon dioxide gas (CO2) from the atmosphere and sequestering it for long periods of time.
I say…What could possibly go wrong?
That said, there are three questions that require an answer.
1. What is the correct concentration of CO2 in PPM our atmosphere must have to prevent this coming catastrophe?
2. And how did you calculate that concentration?
3. What will the average global temperature be in degrees Fahrenheit once the correct CO2 concentration is reached?
When these questions are answered, then and only then, can engineering begin.
jjf
Some of the talk of geoengineering is terrifying on a truly global scale – like the idea of “scrubbing” CO2. Let’s say they actually start doing this. What is the target? They seem to be quite happy with the 250ppm preindustrial level. My problem is, what happens if we overshoot and go below 180?
Yeah, no potential downside there…
But nobody ever wants to consider these possibilities, and they never tell you what they’re actually trying to accomplish in the first place.
But those shelves can thin and break up as warmer water moves in under them.
Apparent warm water surface flow toward Antarctica is only one side of a larger story, one which is about cooling, not warming.
Strengthening Antarctic cooling is causing cold deep water formation around the continent. Cooled water at the Antarctic perimeter sinks via sea floor canyons, initiating cold deep ocean currents. In compensation for this formation and sinking of very cold water, more warm surface water is drawn toward Antarctica. The elevated salinity of this warm water from northerly latitudes makes it eventually denser when it cools at the Antarctic perimeter, driving its sinking and deep water formation. It’s feedback-driven, like the AMOC driven by deep water formation in the Norwegian Sea.
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/18/eaav2516.full
Antarctica is cooling, not warming:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/09/12/widespread-signals-of-southern-hemisphere-ocean-cooling-as-well-as-the-amoc/
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2021/05/13/southern-hemisphere-sea-ice-now-extends-80-km-farther-north-than-prior-estimates/
I started out thinking I would list all of the false, problematic, nonsensical, misstated, and biased opinions in this article, but by halfway through, I realized that the entire article is almost an encyclopedic amalgamation of every alarmist meme from the past 30 years.
This article is pure alarmist claptrap from start to finish.
Not a single fact in sight.
And I thought Doctors were the biggest quackery spewing people on earth, But I stand corrected! Climate Change Quackery has moved to first place. They should just tell the truth, that weather can be manipulated at will, need a storm, tornado, or perhaps an earth quake.
for a small fee, consider it done. How about some out of control forest fires, that will burn by address or zip code. Yes! Geo Engineering is your one stop magneto shop. They can fabricate any change you desire. Use the code GRETA and get an additional discount on you order.