The world's ice sheets just got a dire prognosis, and coastlines will pay the price
By
Laura Paddleson
, CNN
Iceberg and large fragments of drifting ice floating in front of the Antarctic Peninsula.
Photo:
AFP / Claudius Thiriet
The world's ice sheets are on course for runaway melting, leading to multiple metres of sea level rise and "catastrophic" migration away from coastlines, even if the world pulls off the miraculous and keeps global warming to within 1.5 degrees Celsius, according to new research.
A group of international scientists set out to establish what a "safe limit" of warming would be for the survival of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. They pored over studies that took data from satellites, climate models and evidence from the past, from things like ice cores, deep-sea sediments and even octopus DNA.
What they found painted a dire picture.
The world has pledged to restrict global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to stave off the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
However, not only is this limit speeding out of reach - the world is currently on track for up to 2.9 degrees of warming by 2100. But the most alarming finding of the study, published on Tuesday in the journal
Communications Earth and Environment
, is that 1.5 might not even be good enough to save the ice sheets.
Even if the world sustains today's level of warming, at 1.2 degrees, it could still trigger rapid ice sheet retreat and catastrophic sea level rise, the scientists found.
The Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets together hold enough fresh water to raise global sea levels by around 213 feet (65 metres) - an unlikely scenario but one that must be acknowledged to fully understand the risk.
Since the 1990s, the amount of ice they've lost has quadrupled; they are currently losing around 370 billion tons a year. Ice sheet melting is the dominant contributor to rising seas and the rate of annual sea level rise has doubled over the past 30 years.
Photo:
Soph Warnes / CNN via NASA
It's set to get worse.
Multiple studies suggest 1.5 degrees of warming is "far too high" to prevent rapid ice sheet retreat that would be irreversible on human timescales, and the world should prepare for many feet of sea level rise over the coming centuries, according to the study.
"You don't slow sea level rise at 1.5, in fact, you see quite a rapid acceleration," said Chris Stokes, a study author and glaciologist at Durham University.
It's an existential threat to the world's coastal populations. Around 230 million people live less than 1 metre above sea level. Even small changes in the amount of ice held in the ice sheets will "profoundly alter" global coastlines, displacing hundreds of millions of people and causing damage that stretches the limits of adaptation, the study found.
Seas could surge by 0.4 inches (1.01cm) a year by the end of the century, within the lifetimes of young people now, the scientists found.
At this level, which equates to 40 inches a century, "you're going to see massive land migration on scales that we've never witnessed since modern civilisation," said Jonathan Bamber, a study author and glaciologist at the University of Bristol.
There are still huge uncertainties about where tipping points lie. The way climate change unfolds is not linear and it's unclear exactly when warming might trigger rapid retreat and even collapse.
What's hugely concerning, the study authors say, is that the best estimates of "safe" temperature thresholds for saving the ice sheets keep going down as scientists better understand their vulnerability to climate change.
Early modelling suggested temperatures would need to hit around 3 degrees of warming to destabilise the Greenland ice sheet, for example, but recent estimates suggest it would only take around 1.5 degrees.
To avoid the rapid collapse of one of more ice sheets means limiting global warming to closer to 1 degree above pre-industrial levels, the study authors concluded.
This would require drastic cuts to the amount of fossil fuels humans burn, something which looks exceptionally unlikely as countries including the US continue to embrace oil, coal and gas.
The world is already starting to see some of the worst-case scenarios play out in terms of ice loss, Stokes said.
"There's very little that we're observing that gives us hope here," he said. "The absolute best-case scenario is that sea level rise is slow and steady," he added.
The findings don't mean the world should give up on climate targets, as every fraction of a degree of warming translates to worse impacts, Stokes said.
"Limiting warming to 1.5 will be a major achievement. It should absolutely be our target, but in no sense will it slow or stop sea level rise and melting ice sheets."
-CNN
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
3 days ago
- RNZ News
Study shows Pacific nations 'sandwiched' between storm bands
Storm clouds rolling into Wellington on 12 August, 2024. Photo: Supplied / James Bass A climate scientist has discovered that two specific bands of the globe are warming faster than elsewhere. Auckland University's Dr Kevin Trenberth led a study examining where heat - captured by the ocean - travels and accumulates. The first band - at 40 to 45 degrees latitude south - is heating at the world's fastest pace, with the effect especially pronounced around New Zealand, Tasmania, and Atlantic waters east of Argentina. The second band is around 40 degrees north, with the biggest effects in waters east of the United States in the North Atlantic and east of Japan in the North Pacific. Dr Trenberth said it could be why storms that track to New Zealand - from an area warming at a slower rate - seem to strengthen once they get there. He said it's "striking" and "unusual" to see such a distinctive pattern. "It turns out there are changes in ocean currents going on, coupled with changes in the atmospheric circulation - changes in the jet stream - and where all of the storm tracks are going." The heat bands have developed since 2005 in tandem with poleward shifts in the jet stream (powerful winds above the Earth's surface that blow from west to east) and corresponding shifts in ocean currents, according to Trenberth and his co-authors in the Journal of Climate . Trenberth said most Pacific Island nations fall within the subtropics, which are "still quite warm" but heating at a slower rate. But they are effectively sandwiched between the two bands where harsher storms form more frequently. In areas which are warmer, Dr Trenberth said that stronger storms with heavier rainfall are fuelled as they pick up more moisture, taking heat out of the ocean, and sending off along their track. "No doubt the heat will come back into these regions, because of the way in which the winds are changing in the atmosphere." For New Zealand and its neighbours, Dr Trenberth said that these findings could help explain why each new year breaks heat records. "It comes back to what is really going on in the oceans," he said. "They have now warmed up so that they are major players in the global warming picture."
RNZ News
4 days ago
- RNZ News
Climate change scientists accuse government of 'ignoring scientific evidence'
Climate change scientists have written an open letter to Christopher Luxon warning that New Zealand government plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets will jeopardise existing agreements. Photo: RNZ / Marika Khabazi More than 25 international climate change scientists have written an open letter to Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, accusing the government of "ignoring scientific evidence" and urging it to "deliver methane reductions that contribute to the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees". The open letter warns the New Zealand government that plans to introduce new agriculture methane targets based on a goal of causing ''no additional warming" will jeopardise New Zealand's commitments under the Paris Agreement and the Global Methane Pledge. The 26 scientists from different countries say adopting targets consistent with no additional warming implies that current methane emissions levels are acceptable when they are not. "Setting a 'no additional warming' target is to say that the wildfires in America, drought in Africa, floods across Europe, bushfires in Australia, increasing food insecurity and disease, and much more to come are all fine and acceptable, signatory Paul Behrens, global professor of environmental change at Oxford University said in a statement sent to RNZ. "The irony is that agriculture, one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, has many large, vested interests that resist and lobby against the very changes and just transitions needed to avoid those impacts," he said. Another scientist behind the letter was quoted prominently in UK newspaper the Financial Times saying the New Zealand government's approach was an "accounting trick" designed to hide the impact of agriculture in rich countries with big farming sectors, namely Ireland and New Zealand. Luxon dismissed the letter, saying academics "should send their letters to other countries" and he was not going to penalise New Zealand farmers because they were already managing methane emissions better than "every other country on the planet". New Zealand has one of the highest per-capita methane rates in the world because of its farming exports, as well as high per capita carbon emissions. Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target so that, rather than aiming to reduce global heating from livestock, it would aim to keep them the same, a target known as "no additional warming". The current target of 24-47 percent by 2050 already reflects the fact that methane is shorter lived at heating the planet than carbon dioxide, but farming groups says it is too high - and the current government appears receptive. Federated Farmers says the current target is unscientific, and the government appointed a panel to conduct a "scientific review" to the side of its independent Climate Change Commission. Lowering the target would fly in the face of advice from the commission, which says reductions of 35-47 percent are needed for New Zealand to deliver on its commitments under the Paris Agreement. Signatory to the letter Professor Drew Schindel is a professor of climate science at Duke University in the US and chair of the 2021 UNEP Global Methane Assessment. "The New Zealand government is setting a dangerous precedent," he said. "Adopting a goal of no additional warming means New Zealand would allow agri-methane emissions to continue at current high levels instead of using the solutions we have available to cut them. "Agriculture is the biggest source of methane from human activity - we can't afford for New Zealand or any other government to exempt it from climate action," he said in a statement sent to RNZ. Shindell told the Financial Times that using the New Zealand government's approach: "If you're a rich farmer that happens to have a lot of cows, then you can keep those cows forever" which "penalises anybody who's not already a big player in agriculture", including "poor farmers in Africa that are trying to feed a growing population". Agricultural lobby groups argue the government should lower its 2050 methane target. Photo: Supplied The letter was prompted by a powerful push by agriculture lobby groups here and overseas for developed countries to base their climate targets on an alternative method for calculating methane's climate impact, which estimates its contribution to warming based on how emissions are changing relative to a baseline. Proponents argue the newer method, known as global warming potential star (GWP*), better reflects methane's short-lived nature in the atmosphere compared to the long-lasting effects of carbon dioxide and should replace the traditional method of averaging climate impacts over 100 years. Experts say both methods are scientifically valid and can be used to reveal different things. The controversy is over using GWP* to argue that farming sectors in wealthy countries do not have to reduce their climate impacts. The letter argues using GWP* to justify not reducing the impact of farming is incompatible with global efforts to limit heating to between 1.5 and 2C. "It's like saying 'I'm pouring 100 barrels of pollution into this river, and it's killing life. If I then go and pour just 90 barrels, then I should get credited for that'," Behrens told the Financial Times . The government's science review of New Zealand's methane target has been dismissed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment as a purely political exercise. Simon Upton has said there is no particular reason why farmers should get to 'keep' today's levels of heating, particularly given farming's climate impact is larger than it was in 1990. Methane has caused most of New Zealand's contribution to heating so far, partly because it acts more quickly than carbon dioxide, front-loading the impact before it tails off. Climate Change Minister Simon Watts said Cabinet was still carefully considering its decision on whether to lower the target and to what level. He said he did not take the commentary to heart and "it doesn't stop the direction of travel we are following in undertaking a scientific review". Simon Watts said he remained happy with how the government's review of New Zealand's methane target was progressing. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone He said he remained happy with the context of the review and the expertise of the scientists the government selected for it. The panel established by the government last year concluded a 14 - 24 percent reduction in methane emissions off 2017 levels by 2050 was sufficient to ensure no additional warming from the livestock industry. The review was led by former climate change commissioner and former Fonterra board member Nicola Shadbolt. However the panel was not allowed to comment on whether "no additional warming" was an appropriate target. That decision remains one for Cabinet to make. Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at Oxford University's physics department and one of the scientists behind GWP*, agreed it was a political call - telling the Financial Times that governments, not scientists, must decide whether farmers should undo past warming from herd growth. He said he supported separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide, and said traditional approaches to methane overstated the warming impact of keeping emissions the same, and were slow to reflect the impact of raising or lowering methane. Methane is more potent over short periods than carbon dioxide, so raising or lowering it has an immediate strong impact. New Zealand has separate targets for methane and carbon dioxide. The latter needs to fall to net zero by 2050. The open letter comes almost a year to the day after a top Australian climate scientist told RNZ the government's goal of 'no added heating' from farming's methane was problematic. Professor Mark Howden , Australasia's top representative on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said taking a "sensible" mid-point from various IPCC pathways, methane would need to fall by roughly 60 percent by 2050 to meet global climate goals, though not all of that reduction needed to come from agriculture. Oil and gas industry leaks are also major contributors to methane production, and are under pressure to fall more rapidly, because they do not contribute to food production. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
31-05-2025
- RNZ News
Earth's seasonal rhythms are changing, putting species and ecosystems at risk
By Daniel Hernández Carrasco and Jonathan Tonkin of Monsoon rains represent one of Earth's major seasonal cycles. Photo: Shutterstock Seasonality shapes much of life on Earth. Most species, including humans, have synchronised their own rhythms with those of Earth's seasons. Plant growth cycles, the migration of billions of animals and even aspects of human culture - from harvest rituals to Japanese cherry blossom viewings - are dictated by these dominant rhythms. However, climate change and many other human impacts are altering Earth's cycles. While humans can adapt their behaviour by shifting the timing of crop harvests or indigenous fire-burning practices, species are less able to adapt through evolution or range shifts. Our new research highlights how the impacts of shifting seasons can cascade through ecosystems, with widespread repercussions that may be greater than previously thought. This puts species and ecosystems at risk the world over. We are still far from having a full picture of what changes in seasonality mean for the future of biodiversity. From tropical forests to polar ice caps and abyssal depths, the annual journey of Earth around the Sun brings distinct seasons to all corners of the planet. These seasonal rhythms shape ecosystems everywhere, whether through monsoonal rains in equatorial regions or the predictable melt of snowpack in mountain ranges, but the seasonality of these processes is changing rapidly, due to local human impacts. This includes dams in many rivers, which completely and abruptly disrupt their natural flow, and deforestation, which changes the timing of the onset of the rain season. These local influences are compounded by climate change, which is systematically modifying seasonal patterns in snow cover, temperature and rainfall around the world. From the earlier seasonal melting of glaciers and the snowpack to the disruption of monsoonal rain cycles, the effects of these changes are being felt widely. Many important ecological processes we rely on could be affected. A mismatch between plankton blooms and the life cycles of fish could affect the health of fisheries. Tourism dependent on seasonal migrations of large mammals could suffer. Even the regulation of the climate system itself is tightly controlled by seasonal processes. Changing seasonality threatens to destabilise key ecological processes and human society. The seasonal rhythms of ecosystems are obvious to any observer. The natural timing of annual flowers and deciduous trees - tuned to match seasonal variations in rainfall, temperature and solar radiation - transforms the colours of whole landscapes throughout the year. The arrival and departure of migratory birds, the life cycle of insects and amphibians, and the mating rituals of large mammals can completely change the soundscapes with the seasons. These examples illustrate how seasonality acts as a strong evolutionary force that has shaped the life cycles and behaviour of most species, but in the face of unprecedented changes to Earth's natural rhythms, these adaptations can lead to complex negative impacts. For instance, snowshoe hares change coat colour between winter and summer to blend in with their surroundings and hide from predators. They are struggling to adapt to shifts in the timing of the first snow and snowmelt. The impact of changing seasonality on hare populations is linked with changes in predation rates, but predators themselves may also be out of sync with the new onset of seasons. Our research highlights that these kinds of complex interactions can propagate impacts through ecosystems, linking individual species' seasonal adaptations to broader food web dynamics, or even ecosystem functions such as carbon sequestration. Although biologists have studied seasonal processes for centuries, we know surprisingly little about how they mediate any ecological impacts of altered seasonality. Our findings show we are likely underestimating these impacts. The distinct mechanisms involved deserve further attention. Until we account for these complex processes, we risk overlooking important ecological and human consequences. Understanding the extent to which impacts of altered seasonality can interact and propagate from individuals to whole ecosystems is a big challenge. It will require different types of research, complex mathematical modelling and the design of new experiments, but it is not easy to manipulate the seasons in an experiment. Scientists have come up with inventive ways of experimentally testing the effects of altered seasonality. This includes manually removing snow early in spring, manipulating rainfall patterns through irrigation, and moving plants and animals to places with different seasonality. Some researchers have even recovered seeds from centuries-old collections to sprout them and look at how recent changes in climate have affected plant populations. These efforts will be of great value for forecasting impacts, and designing effective management strategies beneficial for ecosystems and humans alike. Such efforts help to anticipate future shocks and prioritise interventions. For instance, understanding the mechanisms that allow native and non-native species to anticipate seasonal changes has proven useful for "tricking" non-native plants into sprouting only in the wrong season. This gives an advantage to native plants. Similarly, studies on the molecular mechanisms involved in the response to seasonality can help us determine whether certain species are likely to adapt to further changes in seasonal patterns. This research can also point out genes that could be targeted for improving the resilience and productivity of crops. Not only are we likely underestimating the ecological risks of shifting seasons, we tend to forget how much our everyday lives depend on them. As Earth's rhythms change, the risks multiply, but so does our opportunity to better understand, anticipate and adapt to these changes. This story was originally published on [ The Conversation]. Daniel Hernández Carrasco is a PhD candidate in Ecology at University of Canterbury. Jonathan Tonkin is associate professor of Ecology and Rutherford Discovery Fellow at University of Canterbury
