logo
Some Glaciers Will Vanish No Matter What, Study Finds

Some Glaciers Will Vanish No Matter What, Study Finds

New York Times29-05-2025

There's news about glaciers, and it's grim.
Regardless of climate mitigation strategies, the world's glaciers are on track to shrink significantly over hundreds of years, according to new study published on Thursday. They're locked in to losing ice.
Even if global temperatures stayed where they are today for the next thousand years, essentially an impossibility, glaciers outside of ice sheets would lose roughly one-third of their mass, researchers estimated.
But there's still hope to avoid the most severe losses, the assessment said. Limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above the preindustrial average could save about twice as much ice in a millennium than if the planet warmed by 2.7 degrees Celsius, the trajectory the world is currently on for 2100, according to the study.
'Every tenth of a degree less of warming will help preserve glacial ice,' said Lilian Schuster, a glacial modeler at the University of Innsbruck in Austria who helped lead the research, which was published in the journal Science. 'With ambitious climate measures, we can save a lot of ice.'
The massive ice sheets that cover Antarctica and Greenland get a lot of attention in the climate change discussion; if they melted, sea levels would rise more than 200 feet, flooding coastal cities around the world.
But glaciers found in mountains and near the margins of ice sheets play a small but significant role in the climate change story, too. They make up less than half of 1 percent of the world's ice and, if they melt, they would contribute about a foot to global sea level rise.
As glaciers melt, they can also increase the risk of deadly floods and landslides. A glacial collapse in Switzerland this week destroyed most of an Alpine village. And if glaciers shrink enough, communities can lose crucial sources of freshwater for drinking, irrigation and hydropower.
Glaciers are melting much more rapidly than ice sheets in response to global warming, in part because they are smaller.
'Glaciers are really symbolic of climate change,' said Harry Zekollari, a glaciologist at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, a Belgian research university, who contributed to the new study.
Glacier retreat has captured much attention in recent years, but the losses so far appear to be only a harbinger of bigger problems to come.
Using eight different glacial models and excluding ice sheets, the researchers analyzed how more than 200,000 of the world's glaciers would respond to 80 different climate scenarios, over thousands of years, in which the planet reached a certain temperature and then stopped warming. The models showed the researchers how long it would take these glaciers to stabilize, or stop changing in response to the initial climate warming.
Even if warming stops at 1.2 degrees Celsius above preindustrial levels, the average warming over roughly the last decade, glaciers are on track to lose significant volumes of ice within a millennium, the study found. The median ice loss was about 40 percent, which would add about 10 centimeters to sea level rise.
Because the planet has already warmed at least 1.2 degrees Celsius, that ice loss and its resulting sea level rise are unavoidable.
Bigger and flatter glaciers with more ice respond more slowly to climate change, taking hundreds, if not thousands, of years to stabilize after a temperature shift, the study found. But most climate models stop at 2100.
'We project the loss for the rest of the century, but we don't really know what happens next,' said Romain Hugonnet, an Earth scientist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks who uses remote sensing to study glacier change and was not involved in the study. 'It's really important to look at it this way.'
If warming instead stopped at 1.5 degrees Celsius, the median estimate suggests that glacial ice loss would creep up to nearly half the current global mass. And at 2.7 degrees Celsius, the Climate Action Tracker estimate for 2100 based on current climate pledges, the median value for glaciers' ice loss would be about 75 percent of their mass.
'A large chunk of these glaciers are going to be lost regardless of what we do,' said Mauri Pelto, a glaciologist at Nichols College in Dudley, Mass., who was not involved in the new study. Still, policies around mitigating climate change and reducing emissions can help avoid the most severe ice-loss scenarios and save the larger glaciers, both he and the study authors stressed.
'We have time to alter the climate,' Dr. Pelto said. 'We have time to preserve those glaciers.'
Scientists are also exploring 'overshooting' warming thresholds, where the world warms beyond a given temperature and then cools down again. Another study by Dr. Schuster, published in the journal Nature this month, found that overshooting to 3 degrees Celsius of warming and then returning to 1.5 degrees Celsius would cause about 11 percent more glacial ice to be lost by 2500, in addition to the unavoidable ice loss.
The results were about what was expected but still alarming, Dr. Hugonnet said. Having multiple models from multiple teams around the world home in on the same outcomes, even with somewhat wide ranges, made the results more robust.
'There's probably more work to be done to see which models perform the best,' Dr. Hugonnet said. 'But we know there will be a substantial loss pretty confidently.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The EPA Wants to Roll Back Emissions Controls on Power Plants
The EPA Wants to Roll Back Emissions Controls on Power Plants

WIRED

time40 minutes ago

  • WIRED

The EPA Wants to Roll Back Emissions Controls on Power Plants

Jun 11, 2025 4:36 PM "The EPA is trying to get out of the climate change business,' says one expert. Aerial view of the coal powered electricity power station known as Fort Martin outside Morgantown, WV Photograph: Getty Images The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) moved to roll back emissions standards for power plants, the second-largest source of CO2 emissions in the country, on Wednesday, claiming that the American power sector does not 'contribute significantly' to air pollution. 'The bottom line is that the EPA is trying to get out of the climate change business,' says Ryan Maher, a staff attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity. The announcement comes just days after the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) quietly released record-breaking new figures showing the highest seasonal concentration of CO2 in recorded history. In a press conference on Tuesday, flanked by legislators from some of the country's top fossil fuel-producing states, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin accused both the Obama and Biden administrations of 'seeking to suffocate our economy in order to protect the environment.' Zeldin singled out data centers as helping to drive unprecedented demand in the US power sector over the next decade. The EPA, he said, is 'taking actions to end the agency's war on so much of our US domestic energy supply.' The proposed EPA rollbacks target a suite of rules on the power plant sector put in place last year by the Biden administration. Those regulations mandated that coal- and gas-fired power plants reduce their emissions by 90 percent by the early 2030s, primarily by using carbon capture and storage technology. Among a swathe of justifications for rolling back regulations, the proposed new EPA rule argues that because US power sector emissions accounted for only 3 percent of global emissions in 2022—down from 5.5 percent in 2005—and because coal use from other countries continues to grow, US electricity generation from fossil fuel 'does not contribute significantly to globally elevated concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere.' However, electric power generation was responsible for 25 percent of US emissions in 2022, according to the EPA, making it second only to transportation among the dirtiest sectors of the economy. A NYU analysis published earlier this month found that if the US power sector were its own separate country, it would be the sixth-largest emitter in the world. 'This action would be laughable if the stakes weren't so high,' says Meredith Hankins, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. The EPA is also targeting the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule, which mandates that power plants maintain controls to reduce the amount of mercury and other toxic air pollutants emitted from their plants. The Biden administration in 2024 strengthened those standards, which date to 2011. Despite progress in reducing mercury emissions since the MATS rule was initially implemented, coal-fired power plants are still the largest source of mercury emissions in the US. The administration has also made it clear that it intends to try to revive the coal industry, which has been on a steep decline since the rise of cheap natural gas and renewables in the 2010s. In a series of executive orders issued in April intended to boost the industry, President Trump tied the future of AI dominance in the US to extending a lifeline to coal. Zeldin and lawmakers who spoke on Tuesday praised the original MATS rule, portraying the 2024 update as an overreach by the Biden administration that imposed undue costs on the fossil fuel industry. ('We're not eliminating MATS,' Zeldin said. 'We're proposing to revise it.') But the coal industry and red states fought hard against the implementation of the original rule, experts who spoke to WIRED point out. 'They do not want to have increased mercury pollution hung around their neck,' Julie McNamara, an associate director of policy with the Climate & Energy program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, says. 'Mercury is a potent neurotoxin that affects the most vulnerable. When coal plants finally installed pollution controls, we had massive mercury pollution reductions and incredible benefits associated with that. I think that's why they want to try and keep the mantle of protecting public health and interest, while trying to make it seem like these were just radical amendments.' The rollbacks are part of a larger attack on the EPA's ability to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and part of an administration-wide effort to divorce climate science from policy. Earlier this year, Zeldin said that the agency would look to target the endangerment finding, a key determination made by the EPA in 2009 that defined greenhouse gases as dangerous to public health and welfare. That move—outlined in Project 2025—raised public objections even from fossil fuel industry groups like the American Petroleum Institute and the Edison Electric Institute, which represents utility companies. Killing the endangerment finding would require clearing a much higher legal bar than rolling back power plant regulations. The proposed rules will be open for public comment, with the agency stating a final rule should be issued by the end of the year; experts who spoke with WIRED say that they expect this latest move to be challenged in court. However, they all emphasized the fact that the proposal is above and beyond even what the first Trump administration attempted to do in eliminating climate regulations in its first term. 'This is a very big deal, that the EPA is attempting to sideline itself,' McNamara says. 'This is saying, 'We do not believe that we should regulate carbon emissions from power plants.' If you can't justify regulating power plants, then you can't justify regulating oil and gas emissions.' Meanwhile, the planet keeps getting hotter. Figures from Mauna Loa Observatory on Hawaii released quietly by NOAA last week show that May had a monthly average of 430.2 parts per million (ppm), the first time in recorded history that seasonal averages of CO2 exceeded 430 ppm, and 3.5 ppm higher than last year's May average. This reading comes on the heels of similarly-sobering figures the agency downplayed in April showing the largest-ever jump in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations between 2023 and 2024. 'Another year, another record,' Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 Program, said in a release on the May numbers. 'It's sad.'

World Bank Ends Its Ban on Funding Nuclear Power Projects
World Bank Ends Its Ban on Funding Nuclear Power Projects

New York Times

timean hour ago

  • New York Times

World Bank Ends Its Ban on Funding Nuclear Power Projects

The world's largest and most influential development bank said on Wednesday it would lift its longstanding ban on funding nuclear power projects. The decision by the board of the World Bank could have profound implications for the ability of developing countries to industrialize without burning planet-warming fuels such as coal and oil. The ban has been formally in place since 2013, but the last time the bank funded a nuclear power project was 1959 in Italy. In the decades since, a few of the bank's major funders, particularly Germany, have opposed its involvement in nuclear energy, on the grounds that the risk of catastrophic accidents in poor countries with less expertise in nuclear technology was unacceptably high. The bank's policy shift, described in an email to employees late on Wednesday, comes as nuclear power is experiencing a global surge in support. Casting nuclear power as an essential replacement for fossil fuels, more than 20 countries — including the United States, Canada, France and Ghana — signed a pledge to triple nuclear power by 2050 at the United Nations' flagship climate conference two years ago. The Trump administration, while far less concerned about climate change than it is with competing against the Russian and Chinese nuclear industries, is trying to expand the fleet of American reactors and quadruple their contribution to the country's electric grids. Cabinet officials have emphasized support for a new generation of smaller reactors that offer the promise of faster deployment but have yet to be proven. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Transport of mercury through rivers has risen threefold since Industrial Revolution, new study finds

timean hour ago

Transport of mercury through rivers has risen threefold since Industrial Revolution, new study finds

Human activity has caused the amount of mercury being transported through rivers all over the world to increase up to threefold since the Industrial Revolution, making regulations to prevent toxic metals from entering waterways even more necessary, according to environmental policy experts. Industrial practices such as coal combustion, mining and manufacturing have increased mercury pollution and changed the way it moves through rivers, causing a sharp rise in mercury concentrations around the world since the 1850s, according to a paper published Wednesday in the journal Science. Scientists pay especially close attention to neurotoxins like mercury due to its ability to accumulate in fish and rivers, Yanxu Zhang, an associate professor at Tulane University's School of Science and Engineering and co-author of the study, told ABC News. Researchers used process-based models to reconstruct the amount of mercury emissions that would have existed in waterways naturally from events such as volcanic activity or wildfires, Zhang said. They found that between 1845 and 1859, the average baseline river cycle was roughly 390 megagrams of mercury per year. Today, rivers carry about 1,000 megagrams per year -- equating in about a 585 megagram per year increase in the last two centuries. The researchers also corroborated this finding with global historic sediment cores, according to the study. The findings of the report are "not at all surprising," John Holdren, a professor of environmental science and policy and former science adviser to President Barack Obama, told ABC News. "It just adds one more data point to the clear evidence that many human environmental impacts far exceed the scale of natural influences," Holdren said. The presence of mercury then poses a health risk to people living nearby -- especially in developing regions in South America, Southeast Asia and Africa, Zhang said. But proposed rollbacks on U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that tightened emissions standards for toxic metals like mercury could soon put Americans at risk of increased mercury levels in U.S. waterways, according to environmental policy experts. Earlier this year, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced a massive deregulation campaign, rolling out more than two dozen policy announcements to propose changes on several emissions regulations. The actions included revisions to the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS), which set limits on mercury and arsenic pollution from coal and oil power plants -- rules the EPA described in a press release in March as "overreaching." During a press conference on Wednesday, Zeldin said that if the proposed changes to MATS are finalized, "no power plant will be allowed to emit more than they do today -- or as much as they did one or two years ago." "These decisions allow more mercury into the air and water, even though mercury is known to harm children's brain development, and arsenic is linked to cancer and birth defects," James Pew, director of federal clean air practice at Earthjustice, told ABC News. In March, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a requirement from the Clean Water Act that forced polluters to comply with water quality standards as a condition of their permits. Last month, the House of Representatives voted to allow about 1,800 facilities -- including chemical plants, refineries and pesticide manufacturers -- to "reclassify" themselves as minor polluters and stop controlling, monitoring or reporting toxic emissions under the Congressional Review Act. The vote passed 216 to 212, with all Democrats and one Republican opposing it. The Senate had approved the resolution weeks earlier. "All of Donald Trump's actions since taking office are taking us backwards on mercury pollution and threatening our health," Sierra Club Climate Policy Director Patrick Drupp told ABC News. Mercury -- along with other heavy metals, such as lead -- is one of the "clearest" cases of public health knowledge that has been translated into environmental standards in the U.S. over the last 50 years, Dan Esty, a professor of environmental law and policy at Yale University and former commissioner of Connecticut's Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, told ABC News. The report is "another reminder of the massive irresponsibility of the EPA's headlong retreat, under President Trump and EPA Administrator Zeldin, from science-based approaches to protecting public health from environmental harms of all kinds," Holdren -- the environmental science professor -- said. Mercury is toxic to both animals and people in a number of ways, necessitating effective controls to keep people from being harmed, Paul Anastas, director of the Center for Green Chemistry and Green Engineering at Yale University and former assistant administrator for the EPA, told ABC News. "It's always foolish to ignore mercury," Anastas said. "...If you're not afraid of mercury, you're not paying attention." Exposure to mercury typically occurs from eating fish and can cause a host of symptoms, such as loss of peripheral vision, the feeling of "pins and needles" in hands and feet and impairment of speech, hearing and walking, according to the EPA. Mercury exposure to infants in the womb can have a severe impact on brain and nervous system development, the EPA noted. The rollbacks will likely trigger more child deaths and increase the number of cases of cancer, lung disease and heart attacks, Ryan Maher, an environmental health attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, told ABC News. The eastern U.S., which contains many industrial sites that could potential have mercury in waste discharges, could especially be impacted, study co-author Zhang said. Mercury contamination is already happening in Minnesota, where residents have been advised by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency to restrict eating fish from rivers, lakes and other bodies of water that have excess mercury to once per week. If mercury levels increase, humans may have to balance fish consumption to avoid exposure, Zhang said.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store