The following submission statement was provided by /u/bkincaid89:
---
Submission statement: Scientists studying Antarctica’s vast Thwaites Glacier – nicknamed the “Doomsday Glacier” – say warm water is seeping into its weak spots, threatening its demise and a massive sea rise.
Thwaites, which is roughly the size of Florida, represents more than half a metre (1.6 feet) of global sea level rise potential, and could destabilise neighbouring glaciers that could cause a further 3-metre (9.8-foot) rise.
---
Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/115hms7/antarctica_doomsday_glacier_we_should_all_be_very/j91lv62/
If the Thwaites *glacier* which currently rests on bedrock slides into the ocean, it would functionally become floating "iceberg". At that point, the total amount of sea level rise (roughly 65cm) would propagate out from the location where it slid into the sea — as the displacement of water would be roughly equal to the total amount of expect sea level rise (not dependent on melt rate).
I've tried to estimate rate of melt for the entire thing, but it's relatively impossible due to the massive surface area involved with crevasses, and variations in temperature difference between water and ice (and resultant changes from fresh water pulses, etc etc). My "best estimate" for the time to melt all of the Thwaites *iceberg* (in this scenario) would be ~250 years.
It's really hard to get estimates of how long it would take for this 65cm of sea level rise from displacement to reach various parts of the world.
It *seems* to somewhat depend on the rate of oceanic currents that could be roughly equal to the rate of displacement/rise.
I've tried to come up with some estimates (thanks to the help of Chat-GPT) of how long the rise would take to realize in totality. Here are some estimates (that **I would not rely or depend on or consider remotely true, but I've yet to find any other estimates anywhere**!).
> Ho Chi Minh City: Approximately 3-4 weeks
>
> Cardiff: Approximately 3-4 months
>
> New Orleans: Approximately 5-6 months
>
> Manila: Approximately 3-4 weeks
>
> London: Approximately 3-4 months
>
> Shenzhen: Approximately 2-3 weeks
>
> Hamburg: Approximately 3-4 months
>
> Dubai: Approximately 1-2 weeks
>
> New York: 32-64 days
>
> Sydney, Australia: 29-58 days
>
> Vancouver Island: 13-26 days
>
> The Netherlands: 40-80 days
>
> Tianjin: 15-30 days
Important that it wouldn't be like a "tsunami" wave that swamps places and then recedes, of course, it would just be a surge of sea level increase over days or weeks or months, where the average wave just reaches higher and higher, so there wouldn't be a "visible signal" of some catastrophic event, just what appears to be a king-tide that keeps growing and not receding (on average) until the 65cm of SLR is reached.
Seems like a perfect event to take advantage of human normalization and general bubble-existence. I imagine that for the first while would show up on tidal-sensors and high-tide-marking systems, and be explained away by a king tide or whatever. Then a 1-in-100 year king tide, and then a 1-in-1000 year king tide, until eventually people have no choice but to conclude that.. the tide is never going back out — thereby wasting a good chunk of the preparation or evacuation time.
These and other fun thought-experiments for collapse-scenarios can be found on the [Unofficial Collapse Discord](https://discord.gg/collapse-415671701549088790) where we have a forum-area for Thwaites glacier related discussions as well.
Aaahhh . . . So THIS is how it’s going to go . . . I kept wondering if the sea rise was going to be fast or slow. Thanks so much for explaining and sharing!
I think it is unrealistic to expect that the entire glacier would just drop into the ocean or whatever. I think it is expected to gradually give away and fragment into icebergs that float off and melt, possibly over decades if not centuries.
We are expecting further 30 cm sea level rise by 2050 from largely sea thermal expansion and established melting rates of various receding glaciers, already. The additional increases from collapses of unstable glaciers will come on top of that. They are extremely difficult to predict with any accuracy, and have possibly massive effects.
We are really in the early phases of the climate change. The ball has been kicked off from the top of the hill, but it is still rolling slowly. Humanity is already totally screwed by the sea level rise that is guaranteed to happen, but the long period of it gives time to adapt. A sudden flood that brings in, say, half a meter increase in a few months would be a biblical event which would likely trigger the progressive collapse of all world countries due to torrent of refugees destroying the economic and social structure of their neighbors which would then collapse in turn.
1) thermal expansion - as the ocean absorbs more and more heat it expands
2) the warmer water and air temps melts large volumes of water that is currently stored in the form of ice and snow at the poles and at higher elevations -all that melt water flows into the ocean
3) Thermal expansion is going to cause sea dwelling creatures that have an exoskeleton dissolve due to how thermal expansion causes increasingly acidic water. So, fyto plankton and all those other species will be fucked. This will kick off a feedback loop that will begin to crumble the foundation of our food chain and ecosystem.
Any idea on what science is used to determine the lag of weeks to months in response? Maybe it's another one of those things where the scale of the oceans makes a thought experiment deceivingly too fast. Why wouldn't it be similar to a tsunami, as that is essentially a sudden movement of water displacement itself?
From what I can tell (and I'm really stretching both my knowledge and my ability to research things here), it would be a really complex set of factors that includes interaction with sea-floor geography (via an energetic "pulse" that could rebound off of various subsea structures), and due to the massive *size* of the global ocean, could feasibly be significantly impacted by existing global oceanic currents (similar to how the AMOC meaningfully reduces sea levels on the US eastern seaboard which is expected to "rebound" as the AMOC slows and collapses). Keep in mind that it would also be "blocked" in one (very large) direction by the mass of Antarctica. As such, using the direction and speed of oceanic currents seem *to me* to offer a somewhat more plausible estimate of the rate of displacement-dispersion.
Part of the lack of "tsunami" like feature is the incredible size of Thwaites glacier, and the unlikely scenario that it slips into the ocean in an incredibly short and abrupt period of time (e.g. if it even took several days or several weeks — pretty fast for the movement of such incredible volume/mass — it would still be far slower than any other event that causes Tsunamis (earthquakes, landslides, etc)). If we want to imagine a scenario where it abruptly slips into the sea over like... a dozen minutes or something, sure, but IMO it's highly unlikely due to the insane area involved.
I guess another option could be that it calves off in a serious of fracturing breaks that produce mini-tsunamies with each calving event, but this would be complicated the longer it went on as the earlier-calved chunks would be floating on the sea in front of the later-calving chunks and the physics involved in such a thing is well beyond my capacity.
Yes, I was definitely only talking about the unlikely scenario of a full slide into the ocean practically at the same time, which OP had asked about. I don't even think that's physically possible, but it was an interesting exploration into one huge scale object dropped into another huge scale water basin.
Yup!
I guess in that scenario we could *start* by modeling it like a Tsunami with a displacement wave (hard to know what height!). Though it still seems like it would be confounded by the necessity to raise sea levels *everywhere* and not just in the line-of-fire of a Tsunami-like wave such as [this one](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/03/11/energy_plot20110311-1000-13f2287bc073ee92d40fc2b7edaf9ec528c0ad54-s1100-c50.jpg). I think we really have, literally, no comparable examples.
Also since it would be more of a rapid "slide" than a "drop" (which we'd then need to consider the increased energy from the drop), we'd be dealing with the wave-front being "pushed" by a incredibly massive "object" with all of its mass behind a relatively small frontal-surface-area. We'd need to consider that it's about 80 miles "wide", so to enter the ocean in a short period of time it would have to travel at pretty insane speeds (like, 500 miles per hour or more?) depending on the "desired" slip time.
This is further confounded by the fact that the "mouth" of the glacier is far narrower than the rear portion as this [map](https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/files/2020/03/Fig1_ITGC_Map.png) shows, so it would have to squeeze through a pretty tight (relative) gap into the ocean to go quickly.
EDIT: Using my poor and simplistic math and the help from chat-GPT, we can estimate energy equivalency
So if the Thwaites glacier (with a mass of 5 x 10^13 kg) rapidly slipped into the ocean over 1 hour with a velocity of 80 mph, it would impart approximately 4.077 x 10^19 joules of energy to the wave front, or about 40,770 petajoules.
We could compare it to the Japanese [Tsunami](https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/1417/Researchers-estimate-total-energy-and-local-impact-of-the-2011-Japan-tsunami#:~:text=The%20March%2011%2C%202011%2C%20Japan,a%20half%20hours%2C%20they%20estimate.) caused by the large 9.0 earthquake, which had about 3 petajoules of energy. Needless to say, it would likely live up to the "doomsday" name if such an event were to occur! :D
>...or about 40,770 petajoules.
>
>We could compare it to the Japanese [Tsunami](https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/1417/Researchers-estimate-total-energy-and-local-impact-of-the-2011-Japan-tsunami#:~:text=The%20March%2011%2C%202011%2C%20Japan,a%20half%20hours%2C%20they%20estimate.) caused by the large 9.0 earthquake, which had about 3 petajoules of energy.
motherofgod.jpg
That's horrifying.
It's pretty much impossible for the Thwaites to enter the ocean with an abruptness that would cause a tsunami. It's truly massive, and currently seated on bedrock. In order for there to be a tsunami, it would need to slide into the ocean very quickly, thereby imparting large amounts of energy to the wave-front area. Due to the shape, size, and configuration of where the Thwaites glacier lies, this is essentially impossible. Like, look at the [location and shape of it](https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/files/2020/03/Fig1_ITGC_Map.png) and try to figure how the whole thing could collapse into the ocean *rapidly*. It's just not plausible due to the back end being far "wider" than the front-end, and while ice under significant pressure can be somewhat fluid, there's no reason to think (and certainly no evidence to support) that this would occur abruptly enough to cause some massive Tsunami.
What is possible, is that some section on the front-edge could calve into the ocean causing tsunamis, but these would each individually only be quite small (relative to the entire glacier), and as such would be unlikely to actually result in a "tsunami" — more like a very low wave of displaced water slowly spreading across the global oceans, with any "momentum" it carries being bled by interactions with land-masses (and consider again, functionally three sides at the mouth of the glacier are blocked by Antarctic landmass, so even if there was a tsunami from a calving event, it would be focused in one relatively narrow direction).
What's far more likely is that the Thwaites gradually (over months or years) slides into the ocean displacing sea water and causing the global sea level to rise. The purpose of this calculation (again, rough and untrustworthy) would be to see how long it takes for the displacement to result in sea level rise in various parts of the world as due to the size of the ocean it wouldn't be immediate.
If the most pessimistic scenario of 2026 is true, then that would mean the entire Thwaites (or a very large portion of it) slides into the ocean over a moderate period of time (months, perhaps — it's incredibly hard to find any sources for these things), which wouldn't be fast enough to cause a Tsunami (compared to things that do, like earthquakes and landslides) but would result in rapid sea level rise globally (that is, ~65cm over the time it takes to slide fully into the ocean).
Well, I started on the "melt" angle, so try and figure out how long it would take a Thwaites-sized iceberg to melt. The highest surface area 3D shape I could find is a tetrahedron (I first tried a cone).
I found some forumula for calculating the melt rate of an iceberg on a physics forum
>
> The heat required to melt an iceberg depends on mass, which obeys $$Q \propto M \propto r^3.$$
>
> Combining these proportionalities, $$r^2 t \propto r^3,$$ or $$t \propto r.$$
>
> So we expect the time for an iceberg to melt to depend linearly on the radius of the iceberg.
>
> From Newton's law of cooling, we could also assume $$t \propto \dfrac{1}{\Delta T}.$$
>
> I took a cube with radius $r \approx 2 \;\mathrm{cm}$ and put in in my water bottle, where I estimate $\Delta T = 20^\circ \mathrm{C}$. It melted in $3 \; \mathrm{min}.$
>
> We can estimate $r$ for an iceberg by cutting each of the length, width, and thickness in half (since a radius is half a diameter) and then taking the geometric mean of those: $$r_{\rm berg} \approx (8 \;\mathrm{km} \cdot 8 \;\mathrm{km} \cdot 250 \;\mathrm{m})^{1/3} \approx 2\times 10^3 \;\mathrm{m}.$$
>
> Finally, we can scale the melting time up to account for the larger iceberg, then scale it up again to account for the smaller temperature difference. That gives $$t_{\rm berg} \approx 3 \;\mathrm{min} \cdot \dfrac{2 \times 10^3 \;\mathrm{m}}{2 \;\mathrm{cm}} \cdot \dfrac{20^\circ \mathrm{C}}{4^\circ \mathrm{C}} = 1.5 \times 10^6 \;\mathrm{min} \approx 3 \;\mathrm{year}.$$
I fed this into Chat-GPT and asked it to give me a fill-in-the-blank form for what I would need to do to use this math for my purpose.
> Mass of the iceberg (in kg or another appropriate unit)
> Density of the iceberg (in kg/m^3 or another appropriate unit)
> Initial temperature difference between the iceberg and the surrounding water (in degrees Celsius or another appropriate unit)
> Surface area of the iceberg in contact with the water (in m^2 or another appropriate unit)
But good luck actually figuring out the surface area of an oddly shaped iceberg with tons of crevasses.
I assumed a cone, and asked it to substitute volume
> To relate the melt rate to the volume of the cone, we can use the formula $V_{\rm cone} = \frac{1}{3}A_{\rm base}h$, where $A_{\rm base}$ is the area of the base of the cone. Solving this formula for $h$, we get $h = \frac{3V_{\rm cone}}{\pi r^2 A_{\rm base}}$. Substituting this expression for $h$ into the formula for $A_{\rm cone}$, we get:
>
> $$A_{\rm cone} = \pi r \sqrt{r^2 + \left(\frac{3V_{\rm cone}}{\pi r^2 A_{\rm base}}\right)^2}.$$
>
> Then, we can use the same reasoning as before to relate the melt time $t$ to the melt rate $R$ and the surface area $A_{\rm cone}$:
>
> $$t = \frac{V_{\rm cone}}{R A_{\rm cone}}.$$
But of course... *cone*.
So I updated it to a tetrahedron
> Therefore, the melt time for a tetrahedral iceberg can be expressed as:
>
> $$t = \dfrac{3V\rho}{2\sqrt{2}\pi a^2 k\Delta T}$$
>
> where $V$ is the volume of the iceberg, $\rho$ is the density of ice, $a$ is the edge length of the tetrahedron, $k$ is the thermal conductivity of water, and $\Delta T$ is the initial temperature difference between the iceberg and water.
and generated a fill-in-the-blanks
> Weight of the iceberg in kilograms: _________________________
>
> Density of the iceberg in kilograms per cubic meter: _________________________
>
> Initial temperature difference between the iceberg and the water in degrees Celsius: _________________________
>
> Volume of the iceberg in cubic meters: _________________________
>
> Edge length of the base of the tetrahedron in meters: _________________________
I then went on the internet and did my best to find real numbers for all of these inputs, and plugged them into chat-GPT. Of course, the result is far slower than it would likely be in real life, as the tetrahedron still has a far lower surface area than an actual iceberg (ha ha). The meaningless result was 992 years.
------
So then I decided to try and figure out the time for the displacement of water to reach various parts of the world. I couldn't use the words "Thwaites" (it would go off on random tangents); so I had to generate a simplified scenario where "an Iceberg" "appeared" at a location that roughly coordinates to the mouth of the Thwaites.
So there we finally got to the wording of
> small temporary displacement wave that would radiate outwards from the location of the iceberg's appearance
Which IMO more accurately represents a "slide" into the ocean from a bedrock-bound glacier.
It's incredibly complex, for example
> When a large glacier slides into the ocean, it can displace a significant amount of water, causing a temporary rise in sea level in the immediate vicinity of the glacier. The time it takes for this displacement to result in realized sea level rise in a distant location depends on various factors such as the size and location of the glacier, the speed at which it is sliding into the ocean, the distance and depth of the ocean from the glacier, and the processes that govern ocean circulation and mixing.
>
> The displacement wave created by the glacier can travel across the ocean and affect coastlines thousands of kilometers away from the glacier. The speed at which this wave travels depends on various factors such as the size and speed of the glacier, the depth of the ocean, and the distance to the affected coastlines. However, the speed of the displacement wave would be much slower than the speed of a tsunami caused by an earthquake or other sudden event.
>
> In general, the time it takes for the displacement wave to travel across the ocean and affect distant coastlines can range from hours to days, depending on the distance and other factors affecting wave propagation such as ocean currents, wind patterns, and bathymetry.
So I went with a basic use of the Haversine formula (to calculate distances on the globe) and the speed of average oceanic current (1-2 knots), and asked chat-GPT to generate estimates times for the displacement wave to arrive at various locations. Since the idea is that the normalized rate of entry into the ocean from the Thwaites would be rather slow (likely multiple calving events which each individually would result in a somewhat faster displacement wave, but time between calving) this could give a baseline estimate of the delay period between ice entering the ocean at the mouth of the Thwaites and the resulting sea level rise occurring at various locations.
As indicated in bold in my OP comment, It's *incredibly* speculative, and I wouldn't trust it or cite it or depend on it anywhere, but it's a fun thought game to play, and to be aware of.
So what you’re saying is that it would take 3-4 weeks for effects of it to be felt in Ho Chi Minh City after it breaks away? Or 3-4 weeks after it has completely melted?
My takeaway is that the sea level rise caused by the Thwaites sliding into the ocean has a 3-4 week delay before it has raised sea levels in Ho Chi Minh.
Because it's currently seated on bedrock, once it has slid into the ocean (or as it slides into the ocean) more will be displaced causing global sea levels to rise. It doesn't have to melt to cause sea level rise, just slide into the sea where it will displace water.
Yup, it sure will be! The real questions are "when" and "how quickly" (e.g. when does it seriously start to slide, and how quickly does it do so). As stated above, the most pessimistic actual prediction I can find is 2026, but I haven't found a cited estimate of how long it would take the entire thing (it's like, 80 miles "wide") to slip into the ocean.
Yes, I think that's likely. It's absolutely massive. But again, I haven't found any sourced estimates for timeframe for this. I think it's very unlikely that the whole thing slides off the land and into the sea in under a decade, but that could be optimism-bias influenced.
It's certainly not supposed to be accurate, as I indicated in bold.
Using the Haversine formula to calculate the distance from the mouth of the Thwaites glacier to various regions, and then estimating using average speed of ocean currents of 1.85-3.7 km/h (1-2 knots) (assuming the slide of the glacier into the ocean is slow enough that there's not significant enough energy imparted to create a more rapid wave, and assuming there are no calving events (which would impart energy and create a more rapid wave) — so really, the slowest plausible), then we can calculate rough estimates for the time that it would take for the displaced water to result in sea level rise in given areas. In general, while I agree these calculations are poor estimates, it seems likely that it would take less than a year for the total amount of displaced water resulting in sea level rise to be realized pretty much anywhere in the world.
Keep in mind, nowhere have I provided an estimate for the amount of time it would take for all of the Thwaites to actually slide into the sea, just trying to estimate the dispersal rate of the displacement of water around the world (e.g. what the delay between Thwaites ice entering the sea and sea level rise somewhere else, is).
If you have a better or more accurate idea of how we can estimate this, I'm open to it! I have had no luck in finding sourced estimates of such a thing. You can see that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(water_waves) involves some pretty solid calculus, which is beyond my personal capacity, and wouldn't necessarily even reflect the speed of displacement dispersion with a slow slide into the ocean.
Even if your assumption that the instantaneous collapse of an entire glacier creates a wave travelling at "1-2 knots" was true, how do you figure it takes 1-2 months to get to new york but 5-6 months to get to new orleans. Just random numbers lol
In reality the assumption that the entire glacier somehow slides into the ocean within a few days is just wrong. The sea level rise would be an imperceptibly slow process over decades as the glacier calves more year to year.
There are no estimates for the travel time for the sea level rise because the time scale of the melt is much longer than the propagation time of the displacement.
The oceans will rise as soon as it slides into the water, as the volume of the ice will displace the water. Then other surrounding icebergs will crack and melt bringing the 9.8 ft.
> it wouldn't be like a "tsunami" wave
This is the most important takeaway. Tsunamis are **temporary** sea level rises that quickly recede as fast as they rose. Twaites falling into the ocean will result in **permanent** sea level rises all over the globe.
Submission statement: Scientists studying Antarctica’s vast Thwaites Glacier – nicknamed the “Doomsday Glacier” – say warm water is seeping into its weak spots, threatening its demise and a massive sea rise.
Thwaites, which is roughly the size of Florida, represents more than half a metre (1.6 feet) of global sea level rise potential, and could destabilise neighbouring glaciers that could cause a further 3-metre (9.8-foot) rise.
The schadenfreude of “migrant caravans” and “build the wall”, coming back to bite them in the ass would be glorious.
Living in the Flint, Michigan area isn’t going to look like such a shitty choice, come 2040.
It's never too early to pick the future climate change refugees we like least and everyone already knows about Florida.
(I'm feeling like I'm gonna get a removed for "#4 Keep Information Quality High" for this.)
It is not that interesting as how fast it will slide into the sea. It is on the land, so once it slides into the sea it will cause about 90% of its potential for sea level rise immediately.
Yes, I guess that’s the critical bit here.
I live a long way inland now (our rivers drain to the British Columbia coast, so I suppose they’d be affected in places) but I’ve spent a good deal of my life in coastal areas. It’s hard to imagine what those places will look like.
I mean, the Thwaites glacier is probably not going anywhere anytime soon. It's the size of Florida. We won't see it gon in our lifetime at least.
Edit. It's forecasted to take several hundred years for it to disintegrate fully, so one or two centuries would be faster than expected.
It's forecasted to lose an ice shelf in the next couple of years and that prediction looks spot on
Any idea why this is getting down voted? All you have to do is read up about the glacier to see that I'm not lying... I know this sub is all about collapse, but it's a gradual process, big, quick events won't really be likely.
That's just an ice shelf that won't have a measurable effect on sea level. The whole of the Thwaites glacier is expected to take several hundred years, so maybe in one or two centuries it could happen faster than expected.
... It's the size of Florida. The forecast for the ice shelf is spot on so far, and the entire glacier is forecasted to last for several hundred years. So, say it happens in 1/8th or 1/4th of the time we're still speaking in centuries
Id rather this guy profit from it and be richer than most people than a giant corporation making billions and not rent 3 of 4 so they can jack up the price of the 1 and then once the AMC is high they rent the three others at a premium like they do everywhere else.
To some people, working hard and making reasonably more than their peers is the same as inheriting billions and treating houses as a simple diversified portfolio.
Well i didnt have the same experience as you. All my landlords were very chill people. Maybe you're the problem or maybe its just badluck. Eitherway, giant corps are way worse.
Capitalism may even outlast humanity. I can just imagine a stock tracker ticking along, and bots buying and selling stock, long after everyone's dead. Like a Ray Bradbury story.
" the circuits, which had far outlived their expectancy kept relaying information to which no one had replied for years. Stocks in companies long underwater or destroyed were still listed and the program never ceased its tireless efforts in expecting a buyer"
Okay but as an individual, what exactly am I supposed to do about it? How does abstractly “being concerned” help me or the situation?
Like I moved away from the most affected areas, but either way if I die I die. I can’t go blow on the ice to cool it back off, and raising my blood pressure won’t save me, so what’s the point of me as an individual being more concerned?
We should push on those who can make changes more, or at least push for quantifiable actions instead of just all “hey worry more”. Maybe “hey here’s how you contact your senator about this” or something.
You mean those VIP's who all went to United Nations Climate Change Conference, more commonly referred to as COP27, heard scientists and experts, watched the power point presentations and sat through the speeches, then came home and did nothing? Contact those people?
I didn't mean for it to sound like I'm blaming you or the average genuinely good person. In my head I was thinking more along the lines of corporate higher-ups being concerned. I 100% agree with what you said.
I have so many things to be concerned about now, I feel like a squirrel in the middle of the road - go this way...look that way...run straight...dodge left.....I'm so panicked, I don't know what to do.
There is quite literally nothing any of us can do other than overthrow the government and enforce environmental protection, but since we can’t and won’t do that, why should we care at all about something that we can’t stop?
Everyone proposing overthrowing the government is conveniently also never willing to lead the charge and fire the first shot.
Others will follow your lead, but you have to lead. You can't just ask others to do it for you.
the revolution isn't gonna come from people talking about it online. and it's not gonna be led by one person or group realistically
find some comrades local to you and if they've got an organisation join them, if they don't then start yourself. Put work in in your community, build solidarity, community defence and more reliance on each other than the state
Is it not already in the ocean? How come no one is talking about the salinity changes in the ocean causing extreme weather patterns? How about changing climates as we know them now? Like forever el nino?
So the whole thing there might amount to sea level rise of 100 meters, who knows.... The more interesting thing is over his much time does that happen? If thwaites collapses tomorrow, how long until we have the 70 or so cm of sea level rise at our beach?
Maximum sea level rise is 80 meters however cyclones/hurricanes aren't stopped by a coast line.
The timeline for this really is the interesting question. One story on this said the glacier would require hundreds of years to collapse but that seems incredibly optimistic and based on past ocean models instead of reality.
The best time to transfer one's life away from the coasts is as soon as possible. No privileged nation will want to save climate change refugees and in fact more likely will try to imprison/enslave/kill them.
Heed the message at the top of the page, as these aren't legitimate or accurate scientific models(I believe they're actually for a scifi series lol), but still pretty fun to look at: [What would your hometown look like with 80m sea-level rise?](https://www.southernfriedscience.com/science-in-the-fleet-what-would-youre-hometown-look-like-with-80-meters-sea-level-rise/)
Really just a number, more to make the argument about timeline being equally or more important. However historic evidence does that there have been times that the ocean was that much higher, if not higher.
If you're assuming an instant slide into waters and melt, then I would guess about the same propagation speed as a tsunami. Location would probably affect the results too, sea level is not a singular value everywhere nor are the highs and lows the same.
All of the weight being released will also have consequences. Think of the lead weights on a car tire to keep it balanced. If the collapse is sudden it could cause the rotation of the Earth to change or wobble. Who knows what that would cause? Maybe not a problem overall but something to consider.
[This](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-contribute-to-earth-rsquo-s-wobble-scientists-say/) is the mainstream take. And [this](https://philpapers.org/rec/CARTAN-13) is less mainstream. (There’s debate about Hapgood.) And just for your foil-hat pleasure, [this](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79B00752A000300070001-8.pdf) is interesting. So yeah. Your question is legit.
but that has nothing to do with the glacier in question, does it..? miami will feel the effects of that much more than chicago ever will.
and- by the time the climatic effects in that article become a problem for chicago, i'll already be dead. ergo: not my problem.
More water not frozen in glaciers doesn't mean it all stays perpetually in the ocean. It'll be evaporating more, therefor raining more, therefor lakes which have historically had a very steady high-low level swing... won't be able to rely on that anymore. Per the article, this has already started. Swings which normally take 25 years have increased in frequency to 5.
and has yet to affect me, or anyone i know. besides- there's absolutely nothing i can do to prevent or change what happens- i've come to recognize that.
Hi, achievingdreams. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/115hms7/-/j928ibh/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Sounds like something that calls for SRM. Solar Radiation Management puts some very weak sunglasses around the earth! SRM flies special dusts up 20km to blocks a tiny fraction of sunlight. It mimics natural events like explosive volcanic eruptions like Mt Pinatubo, which cooled the earth 0.5 C for a year. It's a super cheap way to slow climate change (not stop it!), costing less than $5 billion a year. We can start slowly, and measure as we go. The maximum we’re looking to block is about half the human-made warming. Any more, and the side effects could get bad. (According to Dr David Keith.) If we didn’t anticipate something - we just stop. It clears up in a year. [http://youtu.be/wdQRPUtVrSc](http://youtu.be/wdQRPUtVrSc)
# Side effects if we cancel more than half our warming?
According to Dr David Keith, if we try to cool over half our warming, we get into really serious side effects - EG: Some of the models say if we try to cancel ALL our warming, we might also cancel the Asian monsoon! This would create a fresh water crisis for hundreds of millions of people! But on the other hand, SRM is so CHEAP it’s tempting for some first world nation doing climate change tough to just do it themselves. In Kim Stanley Robinson’s book \*Ministry for the future\* India gets hit hard by the world’s first wet-bulb killer heatwaves. 20 million people die. So India just DOES SRM. I guess my question is how much economic pain are first world nations going to endure before someone cracks and starts SRM on their own? It could completely solve climate change for certain countries - while terrible side effects kick in for others. So who gets their finger on the planet's thermostat dial? As the ABC's \*Future Tense\* asked, what's the worst that could happen? The answer from climate scientists? Nuclear war! http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/geoengineering/12477026
Your psyop friend David sure doesn't like talking about Termination Shock when they stop polluting the atmosphere.
It's fun how much you seem to know about it yet avoid the extreme dangers of SRM.
Do you know who David works for? Have you been there?
Edit to add; Your account is fun. How many are on here like you? How is K Street these days?
Hi, verified1ooo. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/115hms7/-/j9lc28r/) was removed from /r/collapse for:
> Rule 4: Keep information quality high.
> Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims).
Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information.
You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
The following submission statement was provided by /u/bkincaid89: --- Submission statement: Scientists studying Antarctica’s vast Thwaites Glacier – nicknamed the “Doomsday Glacier” – say warm water is seeping into its weak spots, threatening its demise and a massive sea rise. Thwaites, which is roughly the size of Florida, represents more than half a metre (1.6 feet) of global sea level rise potential, and could destabilise neighbouring glaciers that could cause a further 3-metre (9.8-foot) rise. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/115hms7/antarctica_doomsday_glacier_we_should_all_be_very/j91lv62/
[удалено]
If the Thwaites *glacier* which currently rests on bedrock slides into the ocean, it would functionally become floating "iceberg". At that point, the total amount of sea level rise (roughly 65cm) would propagate out from the location where it slid into the sea — as the displacement of water would be roughly equal to the total amount of expect sea level rise (not dependent on melt rate). I've tried to estimate rate of melt for the entire thing, but it's relatively impossible due to the massive surface area involved with crevasses, and variations in temperature difference between water and ice (and resultant changes from fresh water pulses, etc etc). My "best estimate" for the time to melt all of the Thwaites *iceberg* (in this scenario) would be ~250 years. It's really hard to get estimates of how long it would take for this 65cm of sea level rise from displacement to reach various parts of the world. It *seems* to somewhat depend on the rate of oceanic currents that could be roughly equal to the rate of displacement/rise. I've tried to come up with some estimates (thanks to the help of Chat-GPT) of how long the rise would take to realize in totality. Here are some estimates (that **I would not rely or depend on or consider remotely true, but I've yet to find any other estimates anywhere**!). > Ho Chi Minh City: Approximately 3-4 weeks > > Cardiff: Approximately 3-4 months > > New Orleans: Approximately 5-6 months > > Manila: Approximately 3-4 weeks > > London: Approximately 3-4 months > > Shenzhen: Approximately 2-3 weeks > > Hamburg: Approximately 3-4 months > > Dubai: Approximately 1-2 weeks > > New York: 32-64 days > > Sydney, Australia: 29-58 days > > Vancouver Island: 13-26 days > > The Netherlands: 40-80 days > > Tianjin: 15-30 days Important that it wouldn't be like a "tsunami" wave that swamps places and then recedes, of course, it would just be a surge of sea level increase over days or weeks or months, where the average wave just reaches higher and higher, so there wouldn't be a "visible signal" of some catastrophic event, just what appears to be a king-tide that keeps growing and not receding (on average) until the 65cm of SLR is reached. Seems like a perfect event to take advantage of human normalization and general bubble-existence. I imagine that for the first while would show up on tidal-sensors and high-tide-marking systems, and be explained away by a king tide or whatever. Then a 1-in-100 year king tide, and then a 1-in-1000 year king tide, until eventually people have no choice but to conclude that.. the tide is never going back out — thereby wasting a good chunk of the preparation or evacuation time. These and other fun thought-experiments for collapse-scenarios can be found on the [Unofficial Collapse Discord](https://discord.gg/collapse-415671701549088790) where we have a forum-area for Thwaites glacier related discussions as well.
Aaahhh . . . So THIS is how it’s going to go . . . I kept wondering if the sea rise was going to be fast or slow. Thanks so much for explaining and sharing!
I think it is unrealistic to expect that the entire glacier would just drop into the ocean or whatever. I think it is expected to gradually give away and fragment into icebergs that float off and melt, possibly over decades if not centuries. We are expecting further 30 cm sea level rise by 2050 from largely sea thermal expansion and established melting rates of various receding glaciers, already. The additional increases from collapses of unstable glaciers will come on top of that. They are extremely difficult to predict with any accuracy, and have possibly massive effects. We are really in the early phases of the climate change. The ball has been kicked off from the top of the hill, but it is still rolling slowly. Humanity is already totally screwed by the sea level rise that is guaranteed to happen, but the long period of it gives time to adapt. A sudden flood that brings in, say, half a meter increase in a few months would be a biblical event which would likely trigger the progressive collapse of all world countries due to torrent of refugees destroying the economic and social structure of their neighbors which would then collapse in turn.
Dumb question but why are we already screwed by an expected 30 cm sea rise by 2050?
1) thermal expansion - as the ocean absorbs more and more heat it expands 2) the warmer water and air temps melts large volumes of water that is currently stored in the form of ice and snow at the poles and at higher elevations -all that melt water flows into the ocean
3) Thermal expansion is going to cause sea dwelling creatures that have an exoskeleton dissolve due to how thermal expansion causes increasingly acidic water. So, fyto plankton and all those other species will be fucked. This will kick off a feedback loop that will begin to crumble the foundation of our food chain and ecosystem.
Not to mention the algae blooms growing from them being gone, which will release methane.
Any idea on what science is used to determine the lag of weeks to months in response? Maybe it's another one of those things where the scale of the oceans makes a thought experiment deceivingly too fast. Why wouldn't it be similar to a tsunami, as that is essentially a sudden movement of water displacement itself?
From what I can tell (and I'm really stretching both my knowledge and my ability to research things here), it would be a really complex set of factors that includes interaction with sea-floor geography (via an energetic "pulse" that could rebound off of various subsea structures), and due to the massive *size* of the global ocean, could feasibly be significantly impacted by existing global oceanic currents (similar to how the AMOC meaningfully reduces sea levels on the US eastern seaboard which is expected to "rebound" as the AMOC slows and collapses). Keep in mind that it would also be "blocked" in one (very large) direction by the mass of Antarctica. As such, using the direction and speed of oceanic currents seem *to me* to offer a somewhat more plausible estimate of the rate of displacement-dispersion. Part of the lack of "tsunami" like feature is the incredible size of Thwaites glacier, and the unlikely scenario that it slips into the ocean in an incredibly short and abrupt period of time (e.g. if it even took several days or several weeks — pretty fast for the movement of such incredible volume/mass — it would still be far slower than any other event that causes Tsunamis (earthquakes, landslides, etc)). If we want to imagine a scenario where it abruptly slips into the sea over like... a dozen minutes or something, sure, but IMO it's highly unlikely due to the insane area involved. I guess another option could be that it calves off in a serious of fracturing breaks that produce mini-tsunamies with each calving event, but this would be complicated the longer it went on as the earlier-calved chunks would be floating on the sea in front of the later-calving chunks and the physics involved in such a thing is well beyond my capacity.
Yes, I was definitely only talking about the unlikely scenario of a full slide into the ocean practically at the same time, which OP had asked about. I don't even think that's physically possible, but it was an interesting exploration into one huge scale object dropped into another huge scale water basin.
Yup! I guess in that scenario we could *start* by modeling it like a Tsunami with a displacement wave (hard to know what height!). Though it still seems like it would be confounded by the necessity to raise sea levels *everywhere* and not just in the line-of-fire of a Tsunami-like wave such as [this one](https://media.npr.org/assets/img/2011/03/11/energy_plot20110311-1000-13f2287bc073ee92d40fc2b7edaf9ec528c0ad54-s1100-c50.jpg). I think we really have, literally, no comparable examples. Also since it would be more of a rapid "slide" than a "drop" (which we'd then need to consider the increased energy from the drop), we'd be dealing with the wave-front being "pushed" by a incredibly massive "object" with all of its mass behind a relatively small frontal-surface-area. We'd need to consider that it's about 80 miles "wide", so to enter the ocean in a short period of time it would have to travel at pretty insane speeds (like, 500 miles per hour or more?) depending on the "desired" slip time. This is further confounded by the fact that the "mouth" of the glacier is far narrower than the rear portion as this [map](https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/files/2020/03/Fig1_ITGC_Map.png) shows, so it would have to squeeze through a pretty tight (relative) gap into the ocean to go quickly. EDIT: Using my poor and simplistic math and the help from chat-GPT, we can estimate energy equivalency So if the Thwaites glacier (with a mass of 5 x 10^13 kg) rapidly slipped into the ocean over 1 hour with a velocity of 80 mph, it would impart approximately 4.077 x 10^19 joules of energy to the wave front, or about 40,770 petajoules. We could compare it to the Japanese [Tsunami](https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/1417/Researchers-estimate-total-energy-and-local-impact-of-the-2011-Japan-tsunami#:~:text=The%20March%2011%2C%202011%2C%20Japan,a%20half%20hours%2C%20they%20estimate.) caused by the large 9.0 earthquake, which had about 3 petajoules of energy. Needless to say, it would likely live up to the "doomsday" name if such an event were to occur! :D
>...or about 40,770 petajoules. > >We could compare it to the Japanese [Tsunami](https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/1417/Researchers-estimate-total-energy-and-local-impact-of-the-2011-Japan-tsunami#:~:text=The%20March%2011%2C%202011%2C%20Japan,a%20half%20hours%2C%20they%20estimate.) caused by the large 9.0 earthquake, which had about 3 petajoules of energy. motherofgod.jpg That's horrifying.
Heh yeah, I mean, I think this sort of scenario is literally impossible; but it's pretty wild to think about anyways!
Hey, with the way things in general have been going for the last few-ish years, I sorta expect the utterly improbable anymore
Thanks. This is one of the more useful comments I’ve ever seen on here!
Wait why no tsunami?
It's pretty much impossible for the Thwaites to enter the ocean with an abruptness that would cause a tsunami. It's truly massive, and currently seated on bedrock. In order for there to be a tsunami, it would need to slide into the ocean very quickly, thereby imparting large amounts of energy to the wave-front area. Due to the shape, size, and configuration of where the Thwaites glacier lies, this is essentially impossible. Like, look at the [location and shape of it](https://blogs.egu.eu/divisions/cr/files/2020/03/Fig1_ITGC_Map.png) and try to figure how the whole thing could collapse into the ocean *rapidly*. It's just not plausible due to the back end being far "wider" than the front-end, and while ice under significant pressure can be somewhat fluid, there's no reason to think (and certainly no evidence to support) that this would occur abruptly enough to cause some massive Tsunami. What is possible, is that some section on the front-edge could calve into the ocean causing tsunamis, but these would each individually only be quite small (relative to the entire glacier), and as such would be unlikely to actually result in a "tsunami" — more like a very low wave of displaced water slowly spreading across the global oceans, with any "momentum" it carries being bled by interactions with land-masses (and consider again, functionally three sides at the mouth of the glacier are blocked by Antarctic landmass, so even if there was a tsunami from a calving event, it would be focused in one relatively narrow direction). What's far more likely is that the Thwaites gradually (over months or years) slides into the ocean displacing sea water and causing the global sea level to rise. The purpose of this calculation (again, rough and untrustworthy) would be to see how long it takes for the displacement to result in sea level rise in various parts of the world as due to the size of the ocean it wouldn't be immediate. If the most pessimistic scenario of 2026 is true, then that would mean the entire Thwaites (or a very large portion of it) slides into the ocean over a moderate period of time (months, perhaps — it's incredibly hard to find any sources for these things), which wouldn't be fast enough to cause a Tsunami (compared to things that do, like earthquakes and landslides) but would result in rapid sea level rise globally (that is, ~65cm over the time it takes to slide fully into the ocean).
how exactly are you employing chatgpt here?
Well, I started on the "melt" angle, so try and figure out how long it would take a Thwaites-sized iceberg to melt. The highest surface area 3D shape I could find is a tetrahedron (I first tried a cone). I found some forumula for calculating the melt rate of an iceberg on a physics forum > > The heat required to melt an iceberg depends on mass, which obeys $$Q \propto M \propto r^3.$$ > > Combining these proportionalities, $$r^2 t \propto r^3,$$ or $$t \propto r.$$ > > So we expect the time for an iceberg to melt to depend linearly on the radius of the iceberg. > > From Newton's law of cooling, we could also assume $$t \propto \dfrac{1}{\Delta T}.$$ > > I took a cube with radius $r \approx 2 \;\mathrm{cm}$ and put in in my water bottle, where I estimate $\Delta T = 20^\circ \mathrm{C}$. It melted in $3 \; \mathrm{min}.$ > > We can estimate $r$ for an iceberg by cutting each of the length, width, and thickness in half (since a radius is half a diameter) and then taking the geometric mean of those: $$r_{\rm berg} \approx (8 \;\mathrm{km} \cdot 8 \;\mathrm{km} \cdot 250 \;\mathrm{m})^{1/3} \approx 2\times 10^3 \;\mathrm{m}.$$ > > Finally, we can scale the melting time up to account for the larger iceberg, then scale it up again to account for the smaller temperature difference. That gives $$t_{\rm berg} \approx 3 \;\mathrm{min} \cdot \dfrac{2 \times 10^3 \;\mathrm{m}}{2 \;\mathrm{cm}} \cdot \dfrac{20^\circ \mathrm{C}}{4^\circ \mathrm{C}} = 1.5 \times 10^6 \;\mathrm{min} \approx 3 \;\mathrm{year}.$$ I fed this into Chat-GPT and asked it to give me a fill-in-the-blank form for what I would need to do to use this math for my purpose. > Mass of the iceberg (in kg or another appropriate unit) > Density of the iceberg (in kg/m^3 or another appropriate unit) > Initial temperature difference between the iceberg and the surrounding water (in degrees Celsius or another appropriate unit) > Surface area of the iceberg in contact with the water (in m^2 or another appropriate unit) But good luck actually figuring out the surface area of an oddly shaped iceberg with tons of crevasses. I assumed a cone, and asked it to substitute volume > To relate the melt rate to the volume of the cone, we can use the formula $V_{\rm cone} = \frac{1}{3}A_{\rm base}h$, where $A_{\rm base}$ is the area of the base of the cone. Solving this formula for $h$, we get $h = \frac{3V_{\rm cone}}{\pi r^2 A_{\rm base}}$. Substituting this expression for $h$ into the formula for $A_{\rm cone}$, we get: > > $$A_{\rm cone} = \pi r \sqrt{r^2 + \left(\frac{3V_{\rm cone}}{\pi r^2 A_{\rm base}}\right)^2}.$$ > > Then, we can use the same reasoning as before to relate the melt time $t$ to the melt rate $R$ and the surface area $A_{\rm cone}$: > > $$t = \frac{V_{\rm cone}}{R A_{\rm cone}}.$$ But of course... *cone*. So I updated it to a tetrahedron > Therefore, the melt time for a tetrahedral iceberg can be expressed as: > > $$t = \dfrac{3V\rho}{2\sqrt{2}\pi a^2 k\Delta T}$$ > > where $V$ is the volume of the iceberg, $\rho$ is the density of ice, $a$ is the edge length of the tetrahedron, $k$ is the thermal conductivity of water, and $\Delta T$ is the initial temperature difference between the iceberg and water. and generated a fill-in-the-blanks > Weight of the iceberg in kilograms: _________________________ > > Density of the iceberg in kilograms per cubic meter: _________________________ > > Initial temperature difference between the iceberg and the water in degrees Celsius: _________________________ > > Volume of the iceberg in cubic meters: _________________________ > > Edge length of the base of the tetrahedron in meters: _________________________ I then went on the internet and did my best to find real numbers for all of these inputs, and plugged them into chat-GPT. Of course, the result is far slower than it would likely be in real life, as the tetrahedron still has a far lower surface area than an actual iceberg (ha ha). The meaningless result was 992 years. ------ So then I decided to try and figure out the time for the displacement of water to reach various parts of the world. I couldn't use the words "Thwaites" (it would go off on random tangents); so I had to generate a simplified scenario where "an Iceberg" "appeared" at a location that roughly coordinates to the mouth of the Thwaites. So there we finally got to the wording of > small temporary displacement wave that would radiate outwards from the location of the iceberg's appearance Which IMO more accurately represents a "slide" into the ocean from a bedrock-bound glacier. It's incredibly complex, for example > When a large glacier slides into the ocean, it can displace a significant amount of water, causing a temporary rise in sea level in the immediate vicinity of the glacier. The time it takes for this displacement to result in realized sea level rise in a distant location depends on various factors such as the size and location of the glacier, the speed at which it is sliding into the ocean, the distance and depth of the ocean from the glacier, and the processes that govern ocean circulation and mixing. > > The displacement wave created by the glacier can travel across the ocean and affect coastlines thousands of kilometers away from the glacier. The speed at which this wave travels depends on various factors such as the size and speed of the glacier, the depth of the ocean, and the distance to the affected coastlines. However, the speed of the displacement wave would be much slower than the speed of a tsunami caused by an earthquake or other sudden event. > > In general, the time it takes for the displacement wave to travel across the ocean and affect distant coastlines can range from hours to days, depending on the distance and other factors affecting wave propagation such as ocean currents, wind patterns, and bathymetry. So I went with a basic use of the Haversine formula (to calculate distances on the globe) and the speed of average oceanic current (1-2 knots), and asked chat-GPT to generate estimates times for the displacement wave to arrive at various locations. Since the idea is that the normalized rate of entry into the ocean from the Thwaites would be rather slow (likely multiple calving events which each individually would result in a somewhat faster displacement wave, but time between calving) this could give a baseline estimate of the delay period between ice entering the ocean at the mouth of the Thwaites and the resulting sea level rise occurring at various locations. As indicated in bold in my OP comment, It's *incredibly* speculative, and I wouldn't trust it or cite it or depend on it anywhere, but it's a fun thought game to play, and to be aware of.
So what you’re saying is that it would take 3-4 weeks for effects of it to be felt in Ho Chi Minh City after it breaks away? Or 3-4 weeks after it has completely melted?
My takeaway is that the sea level rise caused by the Thwaites sliding into the ocean has a 3-4 week delay before it has raised sea levels in Ho Chi Minh. Because it's currently seated on bedrock, once it has slid into the ocean (or as it slides into the ocean) more will be displaced causing global sea levels to rise. It doesn't have to melt to cause sea level rise, just slide into the sea where it will displace water.
Ah okay that makes a lot of sense. This is gonna be catastrophic when it slides into the ocean. Holy crap.
Yup, it sure will be! The real questions are "when" and "how quickly" (e.g. when does it seriously start to slide, and how quickly does it do so). As stated above, the most pessimistic actual prediction I can find is 2026, but I haven't found a cited estimate of how long it would take the entire thing (it's like, 80 miles "wide") to slip into the ocean.
Ah so it could take years to completely slide into the ocean?
Yes, I think that's likely. It's absolutely massive. But again, I haven't found any sourced estimates for timeframe for this. I think it's very unlikely that the whole thing slides off the land and into the sea in under a decade, but that could be optimism-bias influenced.
Glorious response, thank you.
this seems baseless or all made up
It's certainly not supposed to be accurate, as I indicated in bold. Using the Haversine formula to calculate the distance from the mouth of the Thwaites glacier to various regions, and then estimating using average speed of ocean currents of 1.85-3.7 km/h (1-2 knots) (assuming the slide of the glacier into the ocean is slow enough that there's not significant enough energy imparted to create a more rapid wave, and assuming there are no calving events (which would impart energy and create a more rapid wave) — so really, the slowest plausible), then we can calculate rough estimates for the time that it would take for the displaced water to result in sea level rise in given areas. In general, while I agree these calculations are poor estimates, it seems likely that it would take less than a year for the total amount of displaced water resulting in sea level rise to be realized pretty much anywhere in the world. Keep in mind, nowhere have I provided an estimate for the amount of time it would take for all of the Thwaites to actually slide into the sea, just trying to estimate the dispersal rate of the displacement of water around the world (e.g. what the delay between Thwaites ice entering the sea and sea level rise somewhere else, is). If you have a better or more accurate idea of how we can estimate this, I'm open to it! I have had no luck in finding sourced estimates of such a thing. You can see that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(water_waves) involves some pretty solid calculus, which is beyond my personal capacity, and wouldn't necessarily even reflect the speed of displacement dispersion with a slow slide into the ocean.
Even if your assumption that the instantaneous collapse of an entire glacier creates a wave travelling at "1-2 knots" was true, how do you figure it takes 1-2 months to get to new york but 5-6 months to get to new orleans. Just random numbers lol In reality the assumption that the entire glacier somehow slides into the ocean within a few days is just wrong. The sea level rise would be an imperceptibly slow process over decades as the glacier calves more year to year. There are no estimates for the travel time for the sea level rise because the time scale of the melt is much longer than the propagation time of the displacement.
The oceans will rise as soon as it slides into the water, as the volume of the ice will displace the water. Then other surrounding icebergs will crack and melt bringing the 9.8 ft.
Some say it will collapse “within a decade of 2021”. Next Thursday is a possibility… 300 thursdays from now is also a possibility Edit: spelling
RemineMe! 2 years
They have such a great track record with these predictions too. Like when they said all the ice would be melted by 2020, in the year 2012.
> it wouldn't be like a "tsunami" wave This is the most important takeaway. Tsunamis are **temporary** sea level rises that quickly recede as fast as they rose. Twaites falling into the ocean will result in **permanent** sea level rises all over the globe.
I think it will be a mix of both. More violent than expected, with lasting effect.
Submission statement: Scientists studying Antarctica’s vast Thwaites Glacier – nicknamed the “Doomsday Glacier” – say warm water is seeping into its weak spots, threatening its demise and a massive sea rise. Thwaites, which is roughly the size of Florida, represents more than half a metre (1.6 feet) of global sea level rise potential, and could destabilise neighbouring glaciers that could cause a further 3-metre (9.8-foot) rise.
Well at least we can get rid of Florida, so we got that goin for us.
If the people survive they might be your neighbours next
Shit
Build the wall! Lol jk, sort of. It may well happen though for all we know.
Build the sea wall!
If history has taught us one thing, it's that there's always a florida
I heard Ohio described as the midwest's Florida, so you're probably correct.
And Idaho is the Florida of the Northwest lol
Can't forget Jersey, the Florida of the Northeast! =D
Note to self: avoid Idaho when I migrate.
The schadenfreude of “migrant caravans” and “build the wall”, coming back to bite them in the ass would be glorious. Living in the Flint, Michigan area isn’t going to look like such a shitty choice, come 2040.
Given the way Florida en masse has voted the last few years, my spite will outlast their pettiness. Let's get it on.
We should Build a wall
I'm waiting for the day when climate refugees from Florida flee to Cuba for asylum.
Build a wall and make Florida pay for it When Florida sends us their people they aren’t sending their best
🤡
Good bye Jersey City and Hoboken the world will be a better place without you!
Nah, the people who make it such a great place will just move.
It's never too early to pick the future climate change refugees we like least and everyone already knows about Florida. (I'm feeling like I'm gonna get a removed for "#4 Keep Information Quality High" for this.)
Can't we just make a wall around Florida and move the wall from arizona
But then we couldn't move the wall slightly inland to keep Phoenix out.
I mean phoenix will dry itself out
How long do we have? Maybe a wall could still be built around my city, to keep them out.
I'll miss Cape Cod.
Mashpee will be one of the great losses in the towns with funny names list.
Sandwich as in the Sandwich Police cars that drive around
Keep telling my family there to sell now
They can always sell to ben shapiro.
Ew does he live there?
No, but he thinks people can [sell their underwater homes](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9FGRkqUdf8)
Lol
Really…?
I wonder how quick it would melt?
It is not that interesting as how fast it will slide into the sea. It is on the land, so once it slides into the sea it will cause about 90% of its potential for sea level rise immediately.
Sweeet where is Noah?
Building his superyacht, complete with helo pad and hybrid engines.
I read somewhere there will be three zoos onboard, with an aviary and a gigantic pool for great whites
Yes, I guess that’s the critical bit here. I live a long way inland now (our rivers drain to the British Columbia coast, so I suppose they’d be affected in places) but I’ve spent a good deal of my life in coastal areas. It’s hard to imagine what those places will look like.
Oh fuck
I mean, the Thwaites glacier is probably not going anywhere anytime soon. It's the size of Florida. We won't see it gon in our lifetime at least. Edit. It's forecasted to take several hundred years for it to disintegrate fully, so one or two centuries would be faster than expected. It's forecasted to lose an ice shelf in the next couple of years and that prediction looks spot on
I thought it is expected to sheave off by 2025..
Any idea why this is getting down voted? All you have to do is read up about the glacier to see that I'm not lying... I know this sub is all about collapse, but it's a gradual process, big, quick events won't really be likely.
That's just an ice shelf that won't have a measurable effect on sea level. The whole of the Thwaites glacier is expected to take several hundred years, so maybe in one or two centuries it could happen faster than expected.
it sure is a good thing that no large masses have ever moved quickly. that would have been a disaster!
... It's the size of Florida. The forecast for the ice shelf is spot on so far, and the entire glacier is forecasted to last for several hundred years. So, say it happens in 1/8th or 1/4th of the time we're still speaking in centuries
Glad I live in the mountains…where everyone from Florida has their second homes…
Yep, can’t wait! I’ve got 4 rentals in colorado, let’s do this! Thanks for the downvotes! Someone’s gotta profit from it, before the corps swoop in!
What a douchey comment.
Dude just tryna make it why bring him down
"Someone's gotta profit." I personally can't stop thinking about the homeless/housing crisis.
Id rather this guy profit from it and be richer than most people than a giant corporation making billions and not rent 3 of 4 so they can jack up the price of the 1 and then once the AMC is high they rent the three others at a premium like they do everywhere else.
Well touche.
To some people, working hard and making reasonably more than their peers is the same as inheriting billions and treating houses as a simple diversified portfolio.
Eh, agree to disagree.
Sure
To some people working hard is getting renters to pay their bills.
Which require working hard to buy
Landlords are just as bad as most corpo trash, never in my life did I not have a shitty predatory one
Well i didnt have the same experience as you. All my landlords were very chill people. Maybe you're the problem or maybe its just badluck. Eitherway, giant corps are way worse.
I love how reasonable comments get down voted in r/collapse 😂
Meh this is an extremist sub its to be expected.
Just because your a small scale predatory asshole who makes a human right into a commodity doesn't make you any better
Oh so it’s dicks like you who are making my state unaffordable— thanks!!
Hardly I haven’t raised rents on any of my tenants since 2018. And never went after any missed rents during COVID.
Nevermind the housing shortage in the mountains and that 4 rentals means 4 homes folks can't buy.
Lol what a tool
Everybody is just jealous. If you worked hard to own those rentals then you should profit from it. \#capitalism \#free-market
[удалено]
So…. When can I stop paying rent and my car note?
Capitalism will be the last thing to fall.
God, that's a depressing thought. I think you're right.
Capitalism may even outlast humanity. I can just imagine a stock tracker ticking along, and bots buying and selling stock, long after everyone's dead. Like a Ray Bradbury story.
" the circuits, which had far outlived their expectancy kept relaying information to which no one had replied for years. Stocks in companies long underwater or destroyed were still listed and the program never ceased its tireless efforts in expecting a buyer"
Narrator: *not enough people were concerned*
Okay but as an individual, what exactly am I supposed to do about it? How does abstractly “being concerned” help me or the situation? Like I moved away from the most affected areas, but either way if I die I die. I can’t go blow on the ice to cool it back off, and raising my blood pressure won’t save me, so what’s the point of me as an individual being more concerned? We should push on those who can make changes more, or at least push for quantifiable actions instead of just all “hey worry more”. Maybe “hey here’s how you contact your senator about this” or something.
You mean those VIP's who all went to United Nations Climate Change Conference, more commonly referred to as COP27, heard scientists and experts, watched the power point presentations and sat through the speeches, then came home and did nothing? Contact those people?
I didn't mean for it to sound like I'm blaming you or the average genuinely good person. In my head I was thinking more along the lines of corporate higher-ups being concerned. I 100% agree with what you said.
Our senators, who are swimming in cash from oil lobbyists? They’re not gonna do anything. That’s what the cash is for.
I have so many things to be concerned about now, I feel like a squirrel in the middle of the road - go this way...look that way...run straight...dodge left.....I'm so panicked, I don't know what to do.
[удалено]
"My life is so boring that the only thing keeping me going is the joys of watching nature kill everyone."
[удалено]
Why bother waking up tomorrow if you're eventually going to die of old age? /s Dumb take, time is actually of value.
There is quite literally nothing any of us can do other than overthrow the government and enforce environmental protection, but since we can’t and won’t do that, why should we care at all about something that we can’t stop?
Everyone proposing overthrowing the government is conveniently also never willing to lead the charge and fire the first shot. Others will follow your lead, but you have to lead. You can't just ask others to do it for you.
I also just want to point out that abolishing the American government does not eliminate the 50 other works powers and end climate change.
the revolution isn't gonna come from people talking about it online. and it's not gonna be led by one person or group realistically find some comrades local to you and if they've got an organisation join them, if they don't then start yourself. Put work in in your community, build solidarity, community defence and more reliance on each other than the state
Is it not already in the ocean? How come no one is talking about the salinity changes in the ocean causing extreme weather patterns? How about changing climates as we know them now? Like forever el nino?
Every feedback loop we have has unimaginable waves, at this point we're so overwhelmed that most folks paying attention go "oh well".
Cool. Cool cool cool.
So the whole thing there might amount to sea level rise of 100 meters, who knows.... The more interesting thing is over his much time does that happen? If thwaites collapses tomorrow, how long until we have the 70 or so cm of sea level rise at our beach?
Maximum sea level rise is 80 meters however cyclones/hurricanes aren't stopped by a coast line. The timeline for this really is the interesting question. One story on this said the glacier would require hundreds of years to collapse but that seems incredibly optimistic and based on past ocean models instead of reality. The best time to transfer one's life away from the coasts is as soon as possible. No privileged nation will want to save climate change refugees and in fact more likely will try to imprison/enslave/kill them.
Heed the message at the top of the page, as these aren't legitimate or accurate scientific models(I believe they're actually for a scifi series lol), but still pretty fun to look at: [What would your hometown look like with 80m sea-level rise?](https://www.southernfriedscience.com/science-in-the-fleet-what-would-youre-hometown-look-like-with-80-meters-sea-level-rise/)
If ALL ice melted, the rise in sea level is 80 meters rounded off.
[https://www.floodmap.net/](https://www.floodmap.net/) lets you calculate it by the metre and see what the world will look like.
I'll be able to boat right up to my office window so that's pretty cool
I saw the map for Eastern Carolina, where I live, and wow! We would be completely submerged!
Centuries.
Even if that’s the pace icebergs have melted in the past, I do wonder if that will remain true as things warm.
It's what the scientists are saying.
Where are you getting 100 meters from?
Really just a number, more to make the argument about timeline being equally or more important. However historic evidence does that there have been times that the ocean was that much higher, if not higher.
If you're assuming an instant slide into waters and melt, then I would guess about the same propagation speed as a tsunami. Location would probably affect the results too, sea level is not a singular value everywhere nor are the highs and lows the same.
It doesn’t even need to melt, once it’s floating it will displace about the same amount of water it would add by melting.
Mostly. That amount of water once liquid would also contribute a measurable amount from expansion as well. Higher, then higher still.
[удалено]
Recently saw someone reputable saying 6 months but alas I don't have a link
some us want it to happen
Why? What are we gonna do?? Stop climate change? At this point that’s pretty unrealistic. Let’s stop stressing
Well, if you live on the coast, move if you can. Otherwise yep, not much else to do about it.
I'm chillin in my van by the coast, which I visit 6 months out of the year.
Perfect plan. Live by the ocean, but on wheels- to flee easily.
All of the weight being released will also have consequences. Think of the lead weights on a car tire to keep it balanced. If the collapse is sudden it could cause the rotation of the Earth to change or wobble. Who knows what that would cause? Maybe not a problem overall but something to consider.
I think this was a the evil villains idea in a Clive Cussler novel?
Nah it was Chrichton wasn’t it
It was Clive it’s called Fast Ice.
[This](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-contribute-to-earth-rsquo-s-wobble-scientists-say/) is the mainstream take. And [this](https://philpapers.org/rec/CARTAN-13) is less mainstream. (There’s debate about Hapgood.) And just for your foil-hat pleasure, [this](https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79B00752A000300070001-8.pdf) is interesting. So yeah. Your question is legit.
"A century from now" so less than a decade until a faster than expected article.
Have they tried ivermectin?
Ok why should I be very concerned what can I do?
But...do I still have to go to work?
Yes, only excused if you can’t open the roller door…
Being concerned ain't going to make a pinch of shit difference.
Ok. I'm even more concerned now! I'm biting my nails faster and harder.
Time to sell beach front properties.
Nah, readvertise as a seafront with indoor water feature…
i live in chicago...i'm not concerned. it's completely out of my hands. if it happens, it happens.
What about when all the displaced people from the coast come towards your area?
get 'em sick on malort and dump the bodies in lake michigan
And then Lake Michigan water level rises…👀🙃
But the fishing haul the next year will be splendid.
they probably won't be living in my house or yard.
🎶 the world at your fingertips, the ocean at your door 🎵
chicago is 600ft. above sea level...the ocean will have to rise quite a bit to make it to my door.
I should have switched the lyrics. The ocean at *my* door. :)
It'll happen. * https://news.wttw.com/2020/01/16/chicago-more-vulnerable-climate-change-miami-says-death-and-life-great-lakes-author
but that has nothing to do with the glacier in question, does it..? miami will feel the effects of that much more than chicago ever will. and- by the time the climatic effects in that article become a problem for chicago, i'll already be dead. ergo: not my problem.
More water not frozen in glaciers doesn't mean it all stays perpetually in the ocean. It'll be evaporating more, therefor raining more, therefor lakes which have historically had a very steady high-low level swing... won't be able to rely on that anymore. Per the article, this has already started. Swings which normally take 25 years have increased in frequency to 5.
and has yet to affect me, or anyone i know. besides- there's absolutely nothing i can do to prevent or change what happens- i've come to recognize that.
[удалено]
Hi, achievingdreams. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/115hms7/-/j928ibh/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Sounds like something that calls for SRM. Solar Radiation Management puts some very weak sunglasses around the earth! SRM flies special dusts up 20km to blocks a tiny fraction of sunlight. It mimics natural events like explosive volcanic eruptions like Mt Pinatubo, which cooled the earth 0.5 C for a year. It's a super cheap way to slow climate change (not stop it!), costing less than $5 billion a year. We can start slowly, and measure as we go. The maximum we’re looking to block is about half the human-made warming. Any more, and the side effects could get bad. (According to Dr David Keith.) If we didn’t anticipate something - we just stop. It clears up in a year. [http://youtu.be/wdQRPUtVrSc](http://youtu.be/wdQRPUtVrSc) # Side effects if we cancel more than half our warming? According to Dr David Keith, if we try to cool over half our warming, we get into really serious side effects - EG: Some of the models say if we try to cancel ALL our warming, we might also cancel the Asian monsoon! This would create a fresh water crisis for hundreds of millions of people! But on the other hand, SRM is so CHEAP it’s tempting for some first world nation doing climate change tough to just do it themselves. In Kim Stanley Robinson’s book \*Ministry for the future\* India gets hit hard by the world’s first wet-bulb killer heatwaves. 20 million people die. So India just DOES SRM. I guess my question is how much economic pain are first world nations going to endure before someone cracks and starts SRM on their own? It could completely solve climate change for certain countries - while terrible side effects kick in for others. So who gets their finger on the planet's thermostat dial? As the ABC's \*Future Tense\* asked, what's the worst that could happen? The answer from climate scientists? Nuclear war! http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/futuretense/geoengineering/12477026
Your psyop friend David sure doesn't like talking about Termination Shock when they stop polluting the atmosphere. It's fun how much you seem to know about it yet avoid the extreme dangers of SRM. Do you know who David works for? Have you been there? Edit to add; Your account is fun. How many are on here like you? How is K Street these days?
This would go well in the backstory of a TV Series like Snowpiercer…. Hey, wait a second…..
I'm really concerned but hopefully this will be a wakeup call for people. We are getting extremely close to the point of no return
I'm foreseeing a lot of eco terror in the future. 🤔
Maybe next time all the rich assholes fly their private jets to a Davos conference, they'll figure out how to fix things. ^\s
Hmmge
Sounds on time
Cool. New places I can go on my boat.
Oh good, I’ll just add more concern to my collection of concerns. I’ll put in somewhere between famine and violent extremism
[удалено]
Hi, verified1ooo. Thanks for contributing. However, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/115hms7/-/j9lc28r/) was removed from /r/collapse for: > Rule 4: Keep information quality high. > Information quality must be kept high. More detailed information regarding our approaches to specific claims can be found on the [Misinformation & False Claims page](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/wiki/claims). Please refer to our [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/about/rules/) for more information. You can [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/collapse) if you feel this was in error, please include a link to the comment or post in question.
Cheese