Doomsday Glacier is melting slower than previously thought — but it's still in big trouble

Cracks in the Thwaites Glacier of West Antarctica, which has the potential to contribute 1.6 feet (0.5 meters) of sea-level rise over several centuries, should it collapse.
Cracks in the Thwaites Glacier of West Antarctica, which has the potential to contribute 1.6 feet (0.5 meters) of sea-level rise over several centuries, should it collapse. (Image credit: B.E. Schmidt, IceFin)

An Antarctic glacier nicknamed the "Doomsday Glacier" because of its potential to contribute to catastrophic sea level rise is melting slower than previously estimated. 

But Thwaites Glacier in West Antarctica is still in trouble. Two new studies published today (Feb. 15) in the journal Nature reveal that while the glacier is insulated from the most rapid melt, portions of its underside have been sculpted into dramatic, crevassed terraces. And these stairstep formations are melting at a rapid clip. 

Thwaites glacier sits over a bowl-like depression of bedrock that slopes upward toward the sea, meaning that much of its ice sits below sea level. For that reason, if the glacier retreats too far back it could collapse rapidly, directly contributing to 1.6 feet (0.5 meter) of sea level rise over a few centuries, according to a commentaryl by Craig McConnochie accompanying the two new studies. McConnochie studies environmental fluid dynamics at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand but was not involved in the new research. 

The two studies were conducted as part of the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration, a joint U.K. and U.S. effort to measure the Doomsday Glacier. For their study, researchers drilled a 1,925-foot-deep (587 m) borehole through the glacier's floating section, about 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) from where the glacier is touching the seafloor — known as the glacier's grounding line. They then fixed an instrument 4.9 feet (1.5 m) below the underside of the ice to measure temperature, salt concentrations, velocity of the water flow and melt rate. 

The researchers found that over a nine-month observation period, the melt rate of the ice at this relatively horizontal section of the glacier was slower than computer models have predicted, at about 6.5 to 16.4 feet (2 to 5 m) of ice loss per year. The reason for this slower-than-expected melt rate was that the underside of the ice was cushioned by a layer of fresh meltwater. 

"This stratification insulates the ice shelf and slows the rate of melting, even though ocean temperatures remain several degrees above the melting point," McConnochie wrote in his editorial. 

The borehole also enabled scientists to peer into the underworld of the ice for a second line of research. Britney Schmidt, an Earth and atmospheric scientist at Cornell University, and her colleagues used the hole to launch a cylindrical robot called Icefin beneath the ice shelf to investigate the difficult-to-reach grounding zone. There, they found that the underside of the ice is not smooth and horizontal but stair-stepped in a series of terraces, with vertical walls up to 19.7 feet (6 m) high. Here, the team also found numerous cracks, known as crevasses, where melting was occurring quickly. At these cracks and vertical surfaces, the team found a melt rate of up to 98.4 feet (30 m) of ice loss per year. 

The robotic submersible IceFin, photographed near McMurdo Station, Antarctica.

The robotic submersible IceFin, photographed near McMurdo Station, Antarctica.  (Image credit: Rob Robbins, USAP)

"These new ways of observing the glacier allow us to understand that it’s not just how much melting is happening, but how and where it is happening that matters in these very warm parts of Antarctica," Schmidt said in a statement. "We see crevasses, and probably terraces, across warming glaciers like Thwaites. Warm water is getting into the cracks, helping wear down the glacier at its weakest points."

And if the Doomsday glacier falls, others nearby will potentially follow, and these  could raise sea level by as much as 9.8 feet (3 m) over several thousand years, he wrote. 

Stephanie Pappas
Live Science Contributor

Stephanie Pappas is a contributing writer for Live Science, covering topics ranging from geoscience to archaeology to the human brain and behavior. She was previously a senior writer for Live Science but is now a freelancer based in Denver, Colorado, and regularly contributes to Scientific American and The Monitor, the monthly magazine of the American Psychological Association. Stephanie received a bachelor's degree in psychology from the University of South Carolina and a graduate certificate in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz. 

  • Debed
    So snow falls in the mountains.
    it snows so much that it starts to collaps on itself and it runs outward, creating glaciers.
    it keeps snowing, so the glaciers keeps getting pushed further and further out.
    and in this scenario it will eventually hit the ocean, where it will melt, since it is hotter at ocean level than up in the mountains where it originated from, totally natural.
    so when a piece containing millions of cubic meter of ice breaks off, there is no need to be worried, because in order for millions of cubic meter of ice to break off, it has to receive millions of cubic meters of snow in order to push the glaciers further away.

    So it is a zero sum scenario where nothing was lost and nothing was gained.
    Reply
  • bolide2
    Debed said:
    So snow falls in the mountains.
    it snows so much that it starts to collaps on itself and it runs outward, creating glaciers.
    it keeps snowing, so the glaciers keeps getting pushed further and further out.
    and in this scenario it will eventually hit the ocean, where it will melt, since it is hotter at ocean level than up in the mountains where it originated from, totally natural.
    so when a piece containing millions of cubic meter of ice breaks off, there is no need to be worried, because in order for millions of cubic meter of ice to break off, it has to receive millions of cubic meters of snow in order to push the glaciers further away.

    So it is a zero sum scenario where nothing was lost and nothing was gained.
    The problem is not just that the glacier is being pushed. It is melting.

    The snow is not adding to the glacier as fast as melting is reducing it. The glacier represents thousands of cubic miles worth of water held out of the ocean. If melting continues to exceed deposition, that water flows into the ocean and raises sea levels worldwide.
    Reply
  • Debed
    bolide2 said:
    The problem is not just that the glacier is being pushed. It is melting.

    The snow is not adding to the glacier as fast as melting is reducing it. The glacier represents thousands of cubic miles worth of water held out of the ocean. If melting continues to exceed deposition, that water flows into the ocean and raises sea levels worldwide.

    Ofcourse it is melting. It is warmer at sealevels than up in the mountains.
    What do you expect the glacier to do? Just stand still?
    Reply
  • bolide2
    Debed said:
    Ofcourse it is melting. It is warmer at sealevels than up in the mountains.
    What do you expect the glacier to do? Just stand still?
    In case it wasn't perfectly clear--the glacier is melting faster than it is being replenished by snow.

    It is false to assume that a certain quantity of ice being pushed into the sea requires that same quantity of snow to be deposited at the top.
    Reply
  • Debed
    bolide2 said:
    In case it wasn't perfectly clear--the glacier is melting faster than it is being replenished by snow.

    It is false to assume that a certain quantity of ice being pushed into the sea requires that same quantity of snow to be deposited at the top.

    Ice can only reach 3km high before it collapses under itself and flows outward.
    That is not to say that it will stop flowing outward when it comes down to 3km again.
    But after getting under 3km, the ice will eventually settle again and build itself up until it gets over 3km again, leading it to not push any more ice out while it is stacking the layers again.
    Reply