Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02299-w Abstract Mass loss from ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica has quadrupled since the 1990s and now represents the dominant source of global mean sea-level rise from the cryosphere. This has raised concerns about their future stability and focussed attention on the global mean temperature thresholds that might trigger more rapid retreat or even collapse, with renewed calls to meet the more ambitious target of the Paris Climate Agreement and limit warming to +1.5 °C above pre-industrial. Here we synthesise multiple lines of evidence to show that +1.5 °C is too high and that even current climate forcing (+1.2 °C), if sustained, is likely to generate several metres of sea-level rise over the coming centuries, causing extensive loss and damage to coastal populations and challenging the implementation of adaptation measures. To avoid this requires a global mean temperature that is cooler than present and which we hypothesise to be closer to +1 °C above pre-industrial, possibly even lower, but further work is urgently required to more precisely determine a ‘safe limit’ for ice sheets. Introduction Global mean sea level (GMSL) increased by around 20 cm from 1901 to 2018, with the rate of change accelerating from ~1.4 mm year−1 (1901–1990) to ~3.7 mm year−1 (2006–2018)1 and, most recently, to 4.5 mm year−1 (2023)2. Several processes contribute to sea-level rise (SLR), but melting of glaciers and ice sheets is the dominant source, adding ~1.6 mm year−1 from 2006 to 2018, and now exceeding thermal expansion of the oceans (~1.4 mm year−1)1. Smaller mountain glaciers and ice caps dominated the cryosphere’s contribution to GMSL rise during the 20th Century1,3,4,5 and they will continue to shrink rapidly1,6, with profound impacts on water resources and human activities. However, their cumulative volume in terms of sea-level equivalent (SLE: ~32 cm)7 is dwarfed by the Earth’s ice sheets in Greenland (GrIS: 7.4 m SLE)8, West Antarctica (WAIS: 5.3 m SLE)9 and East Antarctica (EAIS: 52.2 m SLE)9. Of major concern is that the combined sea-level contribution from ice sheets (~11.9 mm from 2006 to 2018) is now larger than for mountain glaciers and ice caps (~7.5 mm over the same period) and is four times higher than in the 1990s1. Bob Wilson
https://scitechdaily.com/antarcticas-astonishing-rebound-ice-sheet-grows-for-the-first-time-in-decades/ .
From the article: Back to 2018 levels. However, sea level rise is the sum of several sources, not just Antarctica. The common description is taking a step up on the down escalator. Bob Wilson
Don't look at me, I ain't no scientist. But once upon a time there were glaciers nearly into Nashville. Maybe it's just cyclic? If Yellowstone's Caldera ever blows, we can get chilly pretty darn quick.
If it is the same report linked elsewhere, the increase was attributed to increased snowfall. Which has lead to increased ice mass for portions of the ice sheet in past. it is just those past increases were countered by losses elsewhere for the year.
A good practice, I read posted links as often there is a disconnect between the "click bait" title and the contents. Bob Wilson
Cyclic global glaciation has been extensively studied. The idea that is has not appears to have been raised above. I may misunderstand those comments. Sources generally show findings from 420 thousand years, which represents 3.3 kilometers of ice cores. Ice core basics The new longest ice core includes about a million years of record in 2.5 kilometers of ice cores. Oldest Unbroken Record of Earth's Climate Pulled From Antarctic Ice Sheet : ScienceAlert This reveals, if nothing else, that solid-water deposition rates are not the same everywhere. Antarctica because fully ice covered about 15 million years, so maybe longer cores can be extracted. It is not easy work because you're on the world's worst continent, and that thing needs to be kept extremely clean. There are other ways to infer longer records of earth glaciation. I have said here before that sea-floor sediment coring provides those, and all were paid for by petroleum-extraction industry. So, a tip of the hat. == The recent 100-thousand-year glaciation cycles were not present (much) longer ago. Dinosaur times were actually warmer than now. You wouldn't have liked it, even setting aside the abundance of absurdly large and effective predators. Plants have actually been evolving towards better removal of CO2 from earth atmosphere (geology kept it removed). Getting [CO2] down to 250-ish parts per million seems to have allowed Milankovitch cycles to control glacial cycles. Whatever people say about plants having something like intelligence and communicating among themselves, they have been supremely stupid about contributing to glaciation. And a subtle thing called CO2 compensation point. And then humans intervened with 'the big fossil burn' and raised [CO2] above 400 ppm. The next global glaciation may be in very distant future. So, another tip of the hat. Better probably for this to have been a bit less frisky though. The human enterprise (we might call it agriculture and global trade and leave out a lot) is tuned to a narrow range of conditions. Exiting that narrow range on the hot side with certainly complicate things. ++ Is that enough? May I stop now?
While the Antarctic has seen ice mass gains in the past couple of years, those gains haven't matched recent loses. Plus the glaciers there are still receding. Which is the big factor for sea level rise.
As long as there are people to write them and read them, more global sea-level rise studies will be done. Archeological studies remain incomplete, look-down satellites have become really good, and climate-response modelers ... will model. Distraction and dissimulation won't end on this topic, as long as money flows to support it. But what is the real deal, and what does it imply? I would not be sad if readers only look at: Rising Seas Could Displace Millions, Triggering Global Migration Crisis, Study Warns https://www.nature.com/articles/s43247-025-02299-w and in the latter, Figure 4. That Fig. is Antarctica only; Greenland can add less, and continental ice adds a smaller slice. West Antarctic Ice Sheet could (will?) add half a meter over some time to this. In the 21st century, SLR will be 0.5 to 1 meter. Globally important seaports can mostly accommodate this (I guess). 100 (200?) million coastal people may need to retreat inland. More importantly, coastal-margin fresh-water aquifers will suffer saline intrusions, and water withdrawals for agriculture and other uses will suffer. Most importantly, future possible CO2 emissions reductions cannot prevent this, as it is baked in. On to later, Greenland ice all melted would increase sea levels by 8.6 m and Antarctica ice all melted would increase sea levels by 51.4 m. Knowledge of both transfers are impeded by geology and thermodynamic slowness. We are now 'at sea' to guess how adding more CO2 will by +T cause rate of SLR. It will be a problem for future humans.
Source: Bruce E. Johansen: Trump’s Mar-a-Lago is due for a dunking Suzanne Goldenberg wrote in The Guardian that “the water is already creeping up bridges and advancing on access roads, lawns and beaches because of sea-level rise….In 30 years, the grounds of Mar-a-Lago could be under at least a foot of water for 210 days a year because of tidal flooding along the intra-coastal waterway, with the water rising past some of the cottages and bungalows, [an] analysis by Coastal Risk Consulting found….Parts of the estate are already at high risk of flooding under heavy rains and storms, the analysis found. By 2045, the storm surge from even a category-two storm would bring waters crashing over the main swimming pool and up to the main building.” Bob Wilson
i read that there is a 3m dollarcarve out for protecting trump properties in the big beautiful bill. truth or propaganda?
