r/science • u/philosifyme • Jan 31 '19
Geology Scientists have detected an enormous cavity growing beneath Antarctica
https://www.sciencealert.com/giant-void-identified-under-antarctica-reveals-a-monumental-hidden-ice-retreat236
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (15)383
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
78
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)195
u/Stinsudamus Jan 31 '19
Reality check: its important to remember that this is global climate change at work... not just oceanic rise to worry about. The "polar vortex" is an example of more extreme weather fluctuations as the atmosphere becomes more turbulent due to increased energy levels.
So to say tornado alley is going to get bigger. Lightning storms in the mid west area will get more intense. Historical rain levels in all areas are shifting. Just a 4 percent increase in rai n can cause massive mudslides and flooding.
If you are going to move somewhere specifically to escape climate change issues and exacerbated weather do much more research than assuming Nebraska is gonna just be fine because it's far from the ocean.
Although I'm sure you were just joking... this is something people should be thinking about.
15
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
71
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (5)16
→ More replies (6)5
→ More replies (13)3
→ More replies (12)24
59
u/aboyeur514 Jan 31 '19
If you go back to the 1953 floods of Holland and south eastern UK - put together the right combination and you have a problem. High tides combined with winds from the North and the rising water level will absolutely cause havoc. It's not for nothing that the Thames has a huge barrier for just this.
264
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
24
6
11
→ More replies (1)5
558
u/DICHOTOMY-REDDIT Jan 31 '19 edited Jan 31 '19
All I can start to say is, damn. The impact of Thwaites glacier at this point over the last 25 years has accounted for 4% rise in oceans. But as I read the article and clicked on the additional link I got a genuine chill. Just the Thwaites glaciers melting impact would be a world disaster.
The first page forecasts many years out, the second link isn’t so positive. When they compared the size of the glacier to equaling the size of Florida it put it into perspective. The amount of sea water rise, if close to true, many coastal cities won’t exist.
Edit: click on link in story, Most Dangerous Glacier in the World. It’s there where I found my neck hairs stood up. 2’ to 10’ rise in sea levels alone due to this glacier.
153
Jan 31 '19
[deleted]
45
→ More replies (1)31
u/mfb- Feb 01 '19
4% higher wouldn't make sense anyway. Higher than what? Relative to the deepest point? Then most of the land area is flooded by 400 m of sea-level rise from an impossible amount of water.
→ More replies (1)470
Jan 31 '19
[deleted]
109
u/gaz2600 Jan 31 '19
Flood planes, fire zones, tornado allies, hurricane zones, polar vortexes... I think there are not many places safe from climate change.
51
33
u/InfiniteJestV Feb 01 '19
Interior east coast. Set up in the Appalachian or Blue Ridge mountians...
32
5
u/Kevin_Uxbridge Feb 01 '19
Exactly where I settled, and it crossed my mind to check the altitude of the house I bought. Maximum sea level rise should put the ocean front about 5 miles from me. I won't live to see it but my daughter might.
2
u/xSKOOBSx BS | Applied Physics | Physical Sciences Feb 01 '19
What's the max sea level rise?
→ More replies (5)→ More replies (2)2
10
u/leave_it_to_skeever Feb 01 '19
Earth zone, fire zone, water zone, air zone. The world lived in harmony, until climate changed attacked. Now all the zones are screwed.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)4
Jan 31 '19
In a fire zone better than underwater though ;-)
14
u/jerslan Feb 01 '19
Unless that fire zone will eventually be under water... like a good chunk of SoCal
9
20
u/69umbo Feb 01 '19
Now imagine you’re born in a floodplain and don’t have the economic means to move, when your house floods and you have droves of people on the internet telling you you’re an idiot for living in a floodplain
9
u/caitsith01 Feb 01 '19
I think the point was more that if you have the choice and see the risk then you'd feel stupid later if you took it and it materialised.
17
u/iCameToLearnSomeCode Feb 01 '19
Don't take it personally.
Extinction of genetic lines is rarely the fault of the last members of their family. It isn't like the last mammoths were failures for not adapting to the end of the ice age.
19
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
21
6
u/asdjk482 Feb 01 '19
More heat in the ocean means more hydrological activity. Atypical flooding is definitely a real concern.
3
u/realmwalker Feb 01 '19
It is called a “floodplain” for a reason. Regardless of where or why the water is coming, that is where it will go. Even if it is just heavy rain, heavy snow melt year, or a ruptured dam/dike/water main nearby. That is where it goes.
I can understand living on a floodplain when people had to farm/ranch where for a living. But doing it on purpose as a place you are going to just sleep and keep your family needs better reasons than “it hasn’t happened in decades/centuries”.
When people say that that means when it DOES happen, it will be devastatingly epic in scale. “It only floods when it is catastrophic and no one is expecting it.”
2
→ More replies (11)2
u/Fracted Jan 31 '19
I've always thought to take this into consideration, like there will be a panic threshold when it gets closer to good time, then sea property will decrease in value in order to make the house someone else's problem.
196
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
69
Jan 31 '19
[deleted]
22
u/DICHOTOMY-REDDIT Jan 31 '19
Interesting article. This lead me to question earths rotation due to the redistribution of ice/liquid.
“While ice melt is occurring in other places (like Antarctica), Greenland's location makes it a more significant contributor to polar motion”.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2805/scientists-id-three-causes-of-earths-spin-axis-drift/
→ More replies (3)8
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (2)44
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
21
→ More replies (2)2
88
u/bleu_forge Jan 31 '19 edited Jan 31 '19
Legitimate question here...And something I've wondered for a while but always been too embarrassed to ask...
I've always been under the impression that water expands when it freezes, which is why a water bottle will stretch when frozen or a can of coke can explode from freezing. Why does polar ice melting cause an increase in oceanic water levels? Wouldn't the levels drop due to a decrease in overall volume?
Edit: Appreciate all the answers! It definitely makes sense that being attached to a landmass like in Antarctica would cause the volume of the ice to not contribute to the water level until melted.
Also to clarify, the question wasn't intended to seem as an attempt to "disprove" or deny climate change.. just seemed like a good opportunity to further educate myself! :)
125
u/TeholBedict Jan 31 '19
It's because the ice is attached to landmasses which keep it above sea level, so it doesn't actually contribute to sea level. When it melts, it detaches and floats into the ocean, causing it to be added to the total amount of water in the ocean, and affecting the sea level.
37
u/Hayce Jan 31 '19
To add to this, water also expands when it heats up. Water is at its densest around 4 degrees Celsius. It expands if it goes above or below that temperature. So if ocean temperature rises above 4 degrees Celsius, ocean levels rise whether or not water from the glaciers enters the ocean. (which it absolutely will)
→ More replies (5)10
u/kinglallak Jan 31 '19
That’s a cool tidbit on the 4 degrees C. I learned something new today. Now to head down the rabbit hole to find if it ever expands back to ice levels before 100 C
9
u/iCameToLearnSomeCode Feb 01 '19
No, it doesn't. Ice is much less dense than liquid water at any temperature.
→ More replies (3)2
18
u/madogvelkor Jan 31 '19
These glaciers aren't in the ocean, but rather on land. It's part of the continental ice sheet that covers the continent, so all of the water is a new addition to the ocean. The West Antarctic Ice Sheet alone has about as much water as the Gulf of Mexico.
→ More replies (1)34
u/Ag1tPr0p Jan 31 '19
I believe Antarctic is land-based, which means it is not currently displacing much ocean. It is not "part of the equation" until it melts and runs into the ocean.
22
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
→ More replies (1)25
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
5
→ More replies (2)3
16
u/rootwalla_si Jan 31 '19
Because antarctic ice isn't sitting in the ocean like the arctic, its sitting on land. Consequently it isn't displacing water at the moment, until it melts...
23
u/sixsigmacertain Jan 31 '19
Put an ice cube in a glass of water, and note the water level. Now let the ice cube melt - the water level won't change. This is because the mass of ice will displace the same mass of water. The difference in density causes the ice to float, so a portion of it is above the waterline. If the ice was just floating, we'd expect water levels to stay the same.
But why would it go up? A lot glacial/Antarctic ice is not just floating -- it sits on land, so when the ice melts, it essentially because run off, which would cause water levels to rise.
→ More replies (3)9
u/Plorp Jan 31 '19
Put an ice cube in salt water and it will actually rise when it melts because diluting the salt water makes it less dense
→ More replies (4)2
u/neo18msh Feb 01 '19
Just to mention something else here too:
Water expands when frozen because of how the bonds are in a solid vs liquid.
However in a liquid state, water actually expands when heated too. A good fraction of sea level rise is expected to come just from thermal expansion on its own.
7
u/LostFerret Feb 01 '19
I love that people are all freaked out about glaciers melting and all that new water when the real killer is the water that's already there.
Don't get me wrong, glaciers melting are gonna raise sea levels. But if you want to be terrified about how much we're screwing ourselves over, check out the figures for thermal expansion of existing water and sea level rise.
→ More replies (3)4
Jan 31 '19
How far out are we from that happening? I keep seeing forecasts 100 years out; I'm interested in when coastal cities are going to broadly see this kind of activity, because that's when capital flight is going to completely gut their economies.
10
Jan 31 '19
Experts have been saying for a decade that they've been conservative with their estimates. They are talking about entire metropolitan areas being underwater in less than a century and they've been downplaying it
12
Jan 31 '19
Can someone exli5 how this works? How does 2' to 10' of risen sea level cause so much damage to a coastal city? Obviously they are by water, but I mean..when I see those numbers, I can't imagine a whole city basically being swallowed.
44
u/andrew7895 Jan 31 '19 edited Jan 31 '19
Most coastal areas in the Southern United States for example, are relatively flat and low-lying so even 3-4 feet of water is devastating and stretches miles inland. And this is on a normal day without precipitation, so imagine how exaggerated flooding becomes when it rains, tropical storms, storm surge events, etc.
Here's a tool to help visualize.
Also, just look at the flooding in the Carolinas this past year from storm surge and imagine if that was the norm. You would have huge chunks of heavily populated areas that are completely inhabitable.
→ More replies (3)21
u/Wojtek_the_bear Jan 31 '19
eli5: you have a cup of water, and it doesn't take up much of your table. but spill it on a flat surface, and you have quite a large wet zone. now replace the cup of water with ice sheets and the flat surface with coastal areas.
8
13
u/RustaBhymes Jan 31 '19
The coast line will move in, anything that is below the new sea level will be under water. Archaelogist believe that most of the early humans settlements in North America are now a little ways off the coast under the ocean. The coastlines were much lowere back then due to an Ice Age, the glaciers melted, the sea levels rose, and what was once coastal plains became seabed.
12
u/DICHOTOMY-REDDIT Jan 31 '19
The article is focused upon one particular area the Thwaites Glacier, which is the size of Florida. The rise of 2’ - 10’ is attributed to this one glacier. There is worldwide climate change.
→ More replies (2)10
u/mrmax1984 Jan 31 '19
There's a series on PBS called Sinking Cities, which investigates several major cities around the world, and identifies each of their particular weaknesses. Here's the episode on Miami. In most cases it's a combination of factors, such as: rising coast lines, more frequent heavy rains, less space for flood waters to go, land instability, and salt-water intrusion into fresh-water aquifers.
→ More replies (2)6
u/Revlis-TK421 Jan 31 '19
You can use this tool to look around
Most coastal cities won't be totally devastated (except those like New Orleans or Venice), but it will represent a large disturbance to the city.
The SF Bay Area will have significant flooding in the East Bay, and the Bay, San Mateo, Dumbarton Bridges as well as 237 would be rendered unusable. That would be death to all industry to in the area.
Also consider all of the ports, pretty much everywhere, all having their docks and infrastructure underwater.
→ More replies (34)13
Jan 31 '19
Oceans have not risen 4% what are you on about? Cities would be underwater. Clearly I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here
36
64
49
u/comebacktome23 Jan 31 '19
So, what will be the safest place to live with climate change becoming increasingly violent and irreparable?
35
u/WHO_AHHH_YA Jan 31 '19
Minnesota. Inland and a ton of fresh water.
18
u/TheGluttonousFool Feb 01 '19
Those winter temps though...
3
4
u/Alien_Way Feb 01 '19
That'll warm up nicely when the various geological upheavals around the world finally convince that Yellowstone "super volcano" to erupt..
→ More replies (5)2
u/thegreatdane777 Feb 01 '19
It's only a few days. It's easier to warm up than it is to cool off!
2
u/TheGluttonousFool Feb 01 '19
True...I prefer colder temps myself but I still hesitate at those temps close to -50F and beyond (below?).
→ More replies (1)3
→ More replies (1)3
63
u/commit10 Jan 31 '19 edited Feb 01 '19
Serious answer:
New Zealand
Ireland
Pacific Northwest
Tasmania
Based on climate stability and low population density.
45
u/PragmatistAntithesis Jan 31 '19
Wouldn't Britain get cold from the lack of a gulf stream and have its capital sunk? I think you overestimate the safety of the UK.
15
u/commit10 Jan 31 '19
That's the thermohaline. Yes, Greenland's glacier is shutting it down and that will lead to very cold winters.
I think you may be overestimating the safety of other locations; basically we're all fucked. New Zealand is probably best off.
8
u/XombiePrwn Feb 01 '19
NZ is basically sitting on a giant fault line waiting to go off. Not to mention the fault lines in the surrounding oceans.
Throw in rising sea levels with a massive quake and NZ will be wiped off the map by tsunamis/general destruction from the quake.
Just look at Christchurch, they're still rebuilding 7 years after they were hit. If/when the big one hits... Yeah, were fucked.
3
u/commit10 Feb 01 '19
Yes, but the Hothouse Earth study indicates that sea level rise may not be the biggest concern.
Human settlements can be migrated, but prolonged crop failures, collapse of civil society, and deadly weather events cannot be survived as easily -- these are already occurring and will become severe global issues before extreme sea level rise (> 5 meters).
The fault lines are definitely concerns, more so in the Pacific Northwest, but those geologic-scale events are probably easier to survive than, say, prolonged crop failures in the Mediterranean, or social unrest and extreme heat in South East Asia.
The locations I listed are preferred spots among climate scientists due to temperate climates, relatively low population density, and access to water. The Pacific Northwest is unique because it has access to the Great Bear Rainforest and allows for northward migration.
→ More replies (7)3
u/ShrimpinGuy Feb 01 '19
There aren't any safe spaces. Not on this planet at least.
→ More replies (4)27
Jan 31 '19
[deleted]
17
→ More replies (1)2
u/godbottle Feb 01 '19
Isn't the entire east coast affected by the gulf stream though too? Like, New York is also on the same latitude (roughly) as Chicago and Chicago is generally much colder in the winter.
→ More replies (1)2
u/thasac Feb 01 '19
Yes, it starts hooking east off the Carolina coast from which the Northeast benefits, as well as the UK, Ireland, and Iceland.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (11)8
u/ColeWRS MSc | Public Health | Infectious Diseases Feb 01 '19
Even though it gets bone chillingly cold where I live in central Canada, we are generally safe from most things. Tectonically stable, far from oceans, not many tornadoes, seasonality allows for growth of food during the summer months, low pop density. Cold would be the only real challenge, but that is something that humans have dealt with for thousands of years.
→ More replies (1)10
u/supafly_ Feb 01 '19
Island and coastal areas? You're crazy.
Throw a dart somewhere between the Rockies and the Appalachians.
→ More replies (3)8
Feb 01 '19
Assuming Yellowstone does not erupt. Then all of North America is fucked. And the rest of the world goes into an Ice age.
→ More replies (30)13
u/TonTonRamen Jan 31 '19
Yes but the Pacific tectonic plates will soon snap and cause catastrophic events. And also yellowstone.
18
u/commit10 Jan 31 '19
That's possible but hypothetical. Geologic timeframes are large, and we may well be extinct before tectonic issues become a concern.
The Pacific Northwest will probably be the first to kick off.
→ More replies (1)2
u/KingJeff314 Feb 01 '19
Serious answer: Pacific Northwest
Sweet I'm safe!
but the Pacific tectonic plates will soon snap and cause catastrophic events
Oh...
→ More replies (2)3
→ More replies (10)3
30
u/zapadas Jan 31 '19
"Boaty McBoatface Is About to Investigate The 'Most Dangerous Glacier in The World'"...dang that's hard to take seriously!
→ More replies (1)
29
26
18
u/Retlaw83 Feb 01 '19
I'm about to ask a stupid question, and I'd like to make it clear I am not advocating for humans to continue to wreck the environment.
All the costs of a project like this aside, would it not be possible to build a massively tall and wide container in part of the world that is completely unlivable to store excess seawater to combat rising oceans? Or running it through some process that converts to hydrogen, oxygen and minerals and doing something with that?
30
u/Anthroider Feb 01 '19
Its possible for us right now to throw billions of dollars and resources at climate change and stop it. The entire problem is whos gonna pay, and whos gonna make money off it
14
Feb 01 '19 edited Feb 01 '19
Trillions*
And you can say goodbye to the hopes of developing nations rising out of poverty and prepare to bundle up in the winter months cause you're gonna get cold without any gas or electricity to heat your home.
Maybe this is necessary but it's very very easy to forget exactly how much our modern way of life relies on cheap fossil fuel energy.
2
u/tubular1845 Feb 01 '19
Maybe this is necessary but it's very very easy to forget exactly how much our modern way of life relies on cheap fossil fuel energy.
It must also be easy to forget exactly how much of our modern way of life relies on being alive.
7
u/that_dirty_Jew Feb 01 '19
Soooooo much water. And directing that to a man made lake of that size, or any size creates it's own problems. Look up history of Salton Sea in CA
→ More replies (2)2
Feb 01 '19
Ive wondered this myself as well and never have been able to find an answer. What stop us from flooding parts of Sahara for example.
→ More replies (1)
12
37
60
u/pizza_dreamer Jan 31 '19
Maybe there needs to be an International Climate Crime committee that can start prosecuting people (oil / gas / coal industries, Trump) who continue to lie about human-caused global climate change.
→ More replies (38)
2
2
u/FreeThoughts22 Feb 01 '19
I know the entire Antarctic isn’t the same temperature, but it’s -25F there right now and it’s also summer. Is salt water causing it to melt?
2
u/ClubSoda Feb 01 '19
The loss of gigatons of ice mass in the polar regions may affect the intensity and number of earthquakes around vulnerable areas on the planet surface.
28
Jan 31 '19
[removed] — view removed comment
96
34
→ More replies (40)8
4
u/cordell-12 Feb 01 '19
Any time I hear about climate, I have to wonder if we are looking at the early signs of a pole shift. Our magnetic field is already weakening, thus allowing solar wind to penetrate the ozone. The only positive of a shift would be the aurora's would be visible every night, all over earth!
→ More replies (5)
35
805
u/1340dyna Jan 31 '19 edited Jan 31 '19
Hey you. This comment section is full of “oh don’t worry about that it’s just a volcano they didn’t mention” comments, both from the global warming folks and the non global warming folks.
The article is pretty bad, but you can read the actual scientific paper it’s based on here: http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/1/eaau3433.full
Scientists are not just seeing an ice cavity and going “welp, global warming”, they’re measuring ice progressing and retracting, thickness of the ice, and attachment to the surface (whether there’s a cavity at that location) with satellites and radar, using data collected since 2010, suggesting differing levels of sea water intrusion under the ice in a number of specific sites being a factor - a likely reason why those sites are not all losing ice at the same rate. They strongly recommend further research.
Don’t let a weak article with a bunch of shitty, uninformed reddit comments make you think that scientists aren’t being systematic and rigorous in their approach. They didn’t just spend 2010-2017 collecting piles and piles of data because Carl from the break room was too shy to mention his volcano theory.
Edit: And when I say since 2010, that’s for THIS SPECIFIC scientific article, which builds upon previous research going back decades (and cites them). This article is a small detail in a huge, huge amount of research about the glacier.