Showing posts sorted by date for query GLACIER. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query GLACIER. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, October 31, 2026


Melting Himalayan Glaciers With Western Greed – OpEd

Buildings are submerged in mud following flash floods in Rasuwa district in central-northern Nepal. Photo Credit: UNICEF

By Graham Peebles

Key Takeaways:

The article argues that Nepal’s 26 August glacial collapse and flash floods, which killed 1,455 people and left about 5,300 missing, are the end result of Western consumerism, corporate greed and fossil-fuel dependence rather than a purely natural event.

Nepal emits only 0.025% of global greenhouse gases yet faces $4–5 billion in reconstruction costs (roughly 2% of GDP), with more than 250 unidentifiable bodies washed downstream in Chitwan and families such as Nabin’s still searching for missing relatives.

It concludes that climate justice requires wealthy nations to cut emissions, dismantle the fossil-fuel economy and internalise environmental costs in the price of goods, or continue imposing the heaviest burdens on the poorest countries.



“My nephew [32-year-old Nabin] was swept away in that devastating flood…he may have been carried away by the raging waters, buried beneath the earth, or perhaps he somehow survived…the hardest part is not knowing whether we have lost him forever or whether, somewhere out there, he is still alive…” Nabin’s uncle told me.

On 26 August, northern Nepal was hit by massive flash floods. A large section of a glacier had detached, triggering an ice-rock avalanche that crashed down the valley, temporarily damming the Trishuli River before releasing a massive wall of water and mud. Communities living along the river in Rasuwa, Nuwakot, Dhading, and Gorkha regions were devastated: homes swept away, schools destroyed, villages decimated. To date 1,455 people are reported dead, and an estimated 5,300 are still missing.

Around 100km further downstream, in Chitwan, The Guardian reports that “more than 250 bodies have washed up along the riverbanks. But they are in such a disfigured state that only nine have been successfully identified.” Unimaginable anguish. Anguish caused by a disaster that rocked Nepal, and beyond.


This ‘natural’ disaster (like most climate-change disasters) was the final act within a chain of events triggered by a particular way of life: a materialistic, consumer-based approach born and nurtured in the West.

A selfish, shallow ideology of greed and division, built to generate huge profits for the few while creating discontent and misery for the many. An approach rooted in desire and discontent, pleasure and division. One that believes in separation—the false notion that we are separate from one another, from the natural world, and from that underlying reality: the silent screen upon which the time-bound movement of living is played out.

These are the pillars of destruction: they have created violent, unhealthy, divided societies, in which the good is often suffocated under the weight of competition, fear and distrust, and have led to the catastrophe we call the environmental emergency.
Foreign Poisons

Nepal is a country of 30 million people; 70% live in rural areas, most are poor. Between a quarter and a third somehow survive on an annual income below $544.73 (the national poverty line). Communities living in remote mountain areas suffer the most: work is scarce and poor roads make travel to food markets, schools and health facilities difficult, sometimes impossible. Public transport is non-existent in some areas, forcing children to walk hours to attend overcrowded, under-resourced schools.


There is no heavy industry in Nepal, and this small, ancient country produces very few GHG emissions—just 0.025% of global emissions—the poisons that are clogging the lower atmosphere, resulting in global warming and climate chaos.

The Nepalese government estimates costs for reconstruction (80 bridges and 40 kilometres of highway have been destroyed) to be between $4 and $5 billion—around 2 per cent of Nepal’s Gross Domestic Product. This is a staggering amount for a very poor nation that bears virtually no responsibility for climate change, which, in this case, led to the flash floods.

Nepal has applied to the UN Loss and Damage Fund for financial assistance. But it may need to take loans from international bodies, incurring interest, to repair damage caused by a disaster resulting from the GHG emissions of wealthy nations and its industrialised neighbours, China and India, where many of the goods bought in the Global North are now manufactured. If climate justice is ever to become a reality, the environmental costs currently incurred by producing nations should be reflected in the price of goods imported by the Global North.
Causal Chain

The glacial collapse that triggered the devastation in northern Nepal is a consequence of the warming climate—this is widely understood. What is not spoken about enough, and bears repeating, is that rising global temperatures are driven by the materialistic lifestyles and irresponsible consumption patterns of wealthy nations.


It is western greed, corporate avarice, and state-led complacency that caused the deaths of 1,455 Nepalese people. And if such tragedies are to be avoided, GHG emissions must be cut and the fossil fuel economy dismantled. This requires a major shift in attitudes and behaviour—not in Nepal, but in the US, the home of rabid consumerism, in Europe/UK, Australia, Japan, and elsewhere.

This common-sense statement is not new; how many times have such words been spoken? And yet, because profit is the god of the hour to the men and women in suits—corporate and political—very little changes. While the impact of climate change is felt in every country, the beneficiaries of the fossil fuel economy are not the ones bearing the heaviest cost. Instead, it is mostly poor nations in the Global South, nations like Nepal, that emit virtually nothing yet now count their dead by the thousands.

Where climate change is concerned, the source of emissions is of little relevance: the natural world is one whole, completely interconnected, beyond man-made borders. So too is humanity—one family. Hard to believe, given the level of division currently on display.

Nepal’s suffering is not an isolated tragedy; it is a symptom of a global system in which those who contribute least to the problem bear the heaviest costs. We live in a world where social injustice has become normalised, where extreme inequality is accepted as inevitable. Now, to this ever-deepening schism of indifference, we must add climate injustice—or climate racism. And in both areas, connected and intertwined, we are reaching tipping points.

“Nabin was the only son of his parents. Even today, his father and mother keep looking toward the gate, hoping against hope that their son might somehow return…When a family loses its only child, it is not just a life that is lost. Dreams are lost, hopes are shattered, and an entire future is changed forever…Everyone’s family has something like this.”

They are not concerned about the underlying causes—GHG emissions, Western greed, and endless consumerism. They just want their son back.

For how long must families like Nabin’s, in countries like Nepal, be expected to simply accept the gross social and climate injustice that flows from a corrupt and cruel socio-economic order? It is complacency—”the root of all evil”—that lies at the core of social and climate injustice: an attitude of indifference that allows the status quo to continue, even as lives are destroyed.


About Graham Peebles
Graham Peebles is an independent writer and charity worker. He set upThe Create Trustin 2005 and has run education projects in India, Sri Lanka and Ethiopia where he lived for two years working with acutely disadvantaged children and conducting teacher training programmes. Website:https://grahampeebles.org/

View all posts by Graham Peebles →

 

Slovenia’s Triglav Glacier disappears after record-breaking summer

Slovenia’s Triglav Glacier disappears after record-breaking summer
The glacier beneath Mount Triglav, Slovenia’s highest peak and a national symbol, shrank dramatically over the past two centuries as temperatures rose.Facebook
By bne IntelliNews October 29, 2026

Slovenia’s Triglav Glacier, one of the country’s most recognisable natural landmarks, has lost its remaining ice following this year’s exceptionally hot summer, with the last patches disappearing at the end of the melting season in September, The Guardian reported. 

The glacier beneath Mount Triglav, Slovenia’s highest peak and a national symbol, shrank dramatically over the past two centuries as temperatures rose.

It covered around 40 hectares in the mid-19th century, but its area had fallen to 14 hectares by the mid-20th century. Between 1983 and 2003, it lost 93% of its surface area, eventually surviving only as scattered patches of ice.

Researchers from the Anton Melik Geographical Institute at the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts have monitored the glacier since 1946. In August, they warned that the remaining ice was likely to disappear by the end of the 2026 melting season.

The melting season generally runs from early May to the end of October, when average monthly temperatures at the nearby Kredarica weather station, at 2,513 metres above sea level, are above freezing.

The remains of the Skuta Glacier, another small Slovenian glacier protected by its shaded location, could survive for several more years, according to the Guardian.

The disappearance of the Triglav Glacier highlights the effects of rising temperatures on mountain environments across Europe and beyond. Glacier loss threatens fragile alpine ecosystems and can affect water availability, as meltwater helps sustain rivers during summer.

The trend is also evident in other mountain regions, including the Himalayas, where retreating glaciers and related hazards pose growing risks to communities and infrastructure.

UN nature summit approves two key agreements after marathon negotiations

Almost 200 nations approved two agreements on Friday to halt biodiversity loss by 2030, following almost two weeks of negotiations that ran into extra time on the final day.



Issued on: 30/10/2026 
By: FRANCE 24

Inger Andersen, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, Hambardzum Matevosyan, Armenia's Minister of Environment and COP17 President, and Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity, attend a session of the 17th meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP 17), in the Armenian capital of Yerevan on October 27, 2026. © Stringer, AFP


Nearly 200 nations on Friday adopted hard-fought agreements at a UN biodiversity summit aimed at putting the world back on track in efforts to halt nature's destruction by 2030.

Delegates cheered as the crucial texts were approved in overtime following two weeks of tense negotiations at the COP17 conference in Armenia's capital Yerevan.

"And that's it. Perfect", said COP17 president Hambardzum Matevosyan to applause as he brought down the gavel on the documents, the final versions of which were not made immediately available to the public.

The world adopted a historic pact in 2022 setting ambitious targets to halt biodiversity loss by 2030.

But ahead of the summit, the UN warned that countries would fail to meet the goal unless they urgently corrected course.

Most of the objectives are falling short, including targets to protect 30 percent of Earth's land and oceans, tackle pollution, and provide poorer countries with greater conservation finance.A draft COP17 text earlier called on countries to "accelerate" efforts to keep the pact alive and stressed "increased action" was needed to tackle the root drivers of nature loss.


El Nino to intensify with peak in December, UN warns
Cover image: © France 24
01:29


Highlighting the disagreements that dogged the talks, the document proposed various options to achieve the 2030 goal. It was not immediately clear which of those options made the cut.

During negotiations, countries wrangled over reforming subsidies and other incentives that encourage activities harmful to nature, such as fossil fuels, intensive agriculture and overfishing.

A separate row revolved around finding new cash sources to fund conservation efforts around the globe – a hot-button issue with public budgets under strain amid an energy crisis and conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East.

To restore degraded ecosystems, save endangered species and conserve forests, wetlands and other vital natural habitats, the world needs an estimated $700 billion more every year than it currently spends.


Climate change: Glacier loss and dry rivers threaten water security
Cover image: © France 24
01:53



The European Union led a charge for wealthy emerging economies such as China to join in paying for global conservation efforts – a contentious issue at COP17.

In a sign that a compromise was in the offing, another draft text that circulated earlier Friday invited countries outside the list of developed country donors to voluntarily join the group.

Science under attack


Efforts to refine the lacklustre Cali Fund – a UN mechanism for sharing profits from corporations that use genetic data from plants and other organisms – also proved difficult.

The fund set out to raise $1 billion a year for conservation in developing countries when it launched in early 2025. So far, it has attracted around $10,000.

Nations have also feuded over key scientific reports, with a small handful of countries accused of stonewalling efforts to accept the benchmark findings of a UN-backed biodiversity body.

"The attacks on science have bothered me a lot," French Ecological Transition Minister Monique Barbut said.

Around 70 ministers joined the negotiations this week in an effort to nudge things along, while indigenous leaders and civil society activists appealed to nations to act with greater urgency.

At the last biodiversity summit in Colombia in 2024, talks ran overtime as nations haggled over conservation finance and ended without a deal. Negotiations resumed in Rome in 2025 where an agreement was reached.

The COP17 summit was also expected to decide on Friday whether Panama or Ecuador will host the next biodiversity summit in 2028.

(FRANCE24 with AFP)

Sunday, October 25, 2026

 

Just 3% of the world’s glaciers account for over half of glacier ice loss



Glaciers ending in lakes, oceans or ice shelves lose 134bn tonnes of ice a year, with those ending in lakes losing ice 57% faster than those on land





University of Birmingham






Glaciers ending in lakes, oceans or ice shelves make up 3.2% of the world’s glaciers, but lost 134bn tonnes of ice each year between 2000 and 2019, accounting for more than half of all glacier ice loss, a new study shows.

The team of environmental scientists found that these glaciers tend to be much larger than those ending on land, together covering more than half of the world’s glacier area. But for glaciers ending in lakes, size isn’t the whole story.

Publishing their findings in Nature Communications, the researchers found that glaciers ending in lakes lost ice around 57% faster, relative to their size, than those ending on land over the same period.

The study was led by scientists from the University of Birmingham and the University of Leeds. The team examined 216,502 glaciers worldwide, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, to identify which end in lakes, adding to existing records of those ending on land, in oceans or in ice shelves. They then compared ice flow and ice loss across all four glacier types.

Many of the models used to project glacier change don’t yet fully account for glaciers ending in lakes. The team’s new glacier classification could help address this, enabling other researchers to improve projections of sea-level rise, water resources and natural hazards.

Dr Joe Mallalieu, who conducted the research at the University of Birmingham and is now based at the University of Leeds, said: “Glaciers ending in lakes really stand out: they’re losing ice particularly quickly. We don’t yet know exactly why. It could be the lakes themselves, the size and shape of the glaciers, or a bit of both. Untangling that is the next big question, especially as glacier lakes are becoming more common in a warming climate.”

Lakes can affect glaciers in several ways that may contribute to this higher ice loss. Lake-ending glaciers can lose large chunks of ice from the glacier front as icebergs, a process known as calving, and lake water can melt the ice below the waterline, both helping to speed up ice loss.

After accounting for factors such as climate, glacier size and elevation, the analysis revealed two key differences: glaciers ending in lakes and oceans flow on average 10% and 44% faster than those ending on land, respectively, and lake-ending glaciers lose around 57% more ice than land-ending glaciers, relative to their size.

Lake-ending glaciers were present in every major glacier region of the world, and in most regions they were losing ice faster than glaciers ending on land or in oceans.

A growing number of glaciers are changing type as the climate warms: ocean-ending glaciers are retreating onto land in parts of the Arctic, while worldwide, the growth of glacier lakes is turning some land-ending glaciers into lake-ending ones. The study’s results suggest these shifts could have contrasting effects, with glaciers retreating onto land likely to slow down, while those newly ending in lakes could lose ice faster.

Dr Nicholas Barrand from the University of Birmingham said: “The last decade has seen a huge increase in the global glacier and climate data available to researchers. Bringing these datasets together lets us compare how glaciers in different settings are behaving. As more glaciers shift from one setting to another, understanding those differences will only become more important.”

Saturday, October 24, 2026

 

Climate change stopped the next ice age



2000 years ago, remnants of a once-vast Arctic ice sheet began growing again, marking the start of a new glacial period—what we commonly call an ice age—But by the 1960s, global warming had raised summer temperatures enough to reverse that growth




Columbia Climate School





Two thousand years ago, the Arctic remnants of a once-vast ice sheet started to grow again. It was the beginning of a new glacial period, more conversationally known as the next ice age—but by the 1960s, summer temperatures were already so high that the ice sheet started to shrink. In other words, global warming ended a period of glaciation that had already begun.

"It was just getting started, everything was normal, the next glaciation was about to happen—and yet it stopped,” says Nicolás Young, a geochemist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, part of the Columbia Climate School. “It’s a very powerful example of how we have jolted the system.”

In a new study published in the journal Science, Young, fellow Lamont geochemist Joerg Schaefer and their colleagues describe their research on the Laurentide Ice Sheet, and his colleagues describe their research on the Laurentide Ice Sheet, which covered much of Canada and the northern United States from about 95,000 to 20,000 years ago. At its largest, it stretched from above the Arctic Circle to Illinois, and in places the ice was over two miles thick.

The last vestige of the Laurentide still survives as the Barnes Ice Cap, now a Delaware-sized ice cap located on central Baffin Island in the Canadian territory of Nunavut. “People always say that it disappeared, but that’s not true,” says Young. And while it’s known that the Laurentide has repeatedly expanded and retreated across North America since widespread, continental-scale glaciation began about 2.6 million years ago, Young’s team wanted to know whether it had ever shrunk even smaller than it is now and then regrown. 

(A note on terminology: Techincally we are still living in an ice age–the Late Cenozoic Ice Age–which started about 34 million years ago. Within it, colder glacial periods alternate with warmer interglacial ones, including the one we live in now. What people casually call an “ice age” is usually a glacial period. The last glacial period ended about 11,700 years ago.)

Reconstructing glacial histories is always difficult, and especially so when trying to reconstruct moments of maximum contraction and initial re-expansion: Apart from the challenge of identifying the origin point, whatever geological clues are left on the landscape tend to be scoured away as glaciers regrow. The cradle of the Laurentide, however, is a special case.

The Barnes Ice Cap is frozen directly to its underlying bedrock. Unlike most glaciers it does not slide, and thus preserves the vegetation that grew at earlier times when the glacier was small and was subsequently entombed by its expansion. Vegetation exposed since the glacier started retreating in 1960 can be sampled, allowing scientists to determine its age by analyzing traces of carbon-14, a harmlessly radioactive form of atmospheric carbon that collects in organisms while they live and breaks down at predictable rates after they die.

"If you do this enough times, you can actually develop a timeline of that ice margin systematically advancing over plants. You're actually tracking the expansion of that ice margin,” says Young.

By combining analyses of vegetation preserved beneath the Barnes Ice Cap and smaller recently-melted ice caps in the region, the researchers pieced together a climate history. The Laurentide reached its minimum dimensions about 3,000 years ago, then started re-expanding about 2,000 years ago when the climate became cold enough for ice to accumulate.

The researchers argue that this inflection point should be considered the beginning of Earth’s next glacial period. This interpretation challenges prevailing ideas about when glacial periods begin. Previous model-based studies have suggested that the next glaciation would not begin for thousands or even tens of thousands of years. Young and his colleagues argue that the first renewed growth of an ice sheet should count as the beginning, rather than waiting until enormous continental ice sheets have formed.

The findings are also a coda for climate scientists who in the 1970s made the controversial claim that a new ice age was imminent. “It actually was happening,” Young says. “They couldn't quite prove it, but now we sort of have the evidence.” It would have taken thousands of years for the cooling to be noticeable, and about 30,000 years for the Laurentide to regain its continent-sprawling mass, but the next glaciation had started, says Young.

By the 1960s Earth’s climate had warmed enough that the Barnes Ice Cap lost more ice in the summer than it added in winter. The next glaciation fizzled out. According to models of the glacier’s future, it will melt completely within the next few centuries. “That will be the true very last remains of the Laurentide, disappearing for good,” Young says.

Its disappearance could change the dynamics of future glaciations and ice ages. The Laurentide served as a glacial nucleation point when Earth’s climate cooled, as its frigid mass created self-sustaining feedbacks that caused more ice to grow on it. Scientists can’t say when the next glaciation might occur in a world with elevated freenhouse gas concentrations. But if continental ice sheets eventually begin growing again, they may have to do so without the last surviving remnant of the Laurentide.

"What has been an extremely natural and predictable phenomenon is now gone,” says Young.

Friday, October 23, 2026




World set to breach 1.5C warming limit as UN warns time is running out


Global warming is now set to breach the 1.5C target limit set out in the 2015 Paris Agreement, after decades of insufficient climate action, the United Nations Environment Programme has warned. Temperatures could still be reduced, but only with far larger emissions cuts and the removal of vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere using methods the UN says are "costly and risky".


Issued on: 21/10/2026 - RFI


A giant postcard calling for global warming to be limited to 1.5C is displayed on Switzerland’s Aletsch glacier in November 2018. © Valentin Flauraud/Keystone via AP

The chances of keeping average warming to 1.5C have effectively vanished – at least temporarily – the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said in its annual Emissions Gap Report published on Wednesday.

The report comes ahead of Cop31, the UN climate conference to be held in Antalya, Turkey next month. UNEP had already raised the prospect of an overshoot – temporarily exceeding the 1.5C limit before bringing temperatures back down – in its Limiting Overshoot report in September.

Average global warming is already around 1.4C above pre-industrial times, when economic development in the West began warming the planet. The past nine years have been the hottest on record.

The year 2024 was the first individual year to average more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels, however the Paris Agreement target refers to long-term warming, typically measured over around 20 years.

In 2025, global emissions stood at 58.4 gigatonnes of CO2 equivalent, a measure used to compare the warming effect of different gases.

That total was roughly unchanged from 2024, but CO2 from fossil fuels, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases are still rising, so it is too early to say emissions have peaked, UNEP warned.

Smaller releases from forest fires, after an exceptional 2024, offset those increases.


'Imminent and unavoidable'

After decades of falling short on emissions cuts, a larger overshoot of the 1.5C limit is now “imminent and unavoidable”, the report said.

Passing 1.5C does not trigger a single sudden shift. Instead, each additional fraction of a degree adds to the damage, shrinking sea ice, thawing permafrost, killing corals and worsening droughts and fires, with knock-on effects on health and on food and energy prices.

The challenge is to keep warming well below 2C while limiting how far and how long temperatures overshoot 1.5C, with a credible return by the end of the century, the report said. Some changes, including glacier melt, cannot be reversed.

“Overshoot is not surrender. We can still keep it as small and as short as possible,” UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres said in a video message released with the report.

In the best-case scenario, warming would peak at 1.7 or 1.8C around the middle of this century before falling. This scenario gives an approximately 50 percent chance of returning to 1.5C or below by 2100. Emissions would have to fall by 18 percent by 2030, 45 percent by 2035 and 69 percent by 2040 – so almost 6 percent a year.

“This 18 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions makes complete sense. If we act very quickly, with political will and courage, it is entirely possible,” UNEP executive director Inger Andersen said at a press conference.

Pledges off track


Even if governments fully implemented their national climate plans, emissions would fall by only 5-8 percent by 2030 and 11-15 percent by 2035, the report found.

Warming would still reach about 2.6C by the end of the century on that basis, or 2.8C under current policies. Without urgent action, keeping peak warming below 1.7 or 1.8C will soon become impossible.

Returning to 1.5C would also require cutting coal’s share of the world’s energy supply by 55 percent by 2035, oil by 15 percent and gas by 5 percent. Coal-fired electricity would need to be effectively phased out worldwide by 2040, even as China and India continue building new plants.

Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas, would need to fall at least 25 percent below 2025 levels by 2035 and at least 40 percent by 2040. Such cuts are within technical reach if governments find the will to repair leaks that satellites can now track.

Carbon removal gamble

Deep emissions cuts would not be enough on their own. Bringing temperatures back down would also require removing CO2 already in the atmosphere.

The best-case pathway would require removing and storing about 320 gigatonnes of CO2 over the century, equivalent to roughly eight years of emissions.

Carbon could be removed through nature-based measures such as planting forests and improving wetland management, as well as technologies that capture emissions during energy production or remove CO2 directly from the air, report author Keywan Riahi explained.

But both natural and technological approaches may fail to remove carbon on the scale required. Climate change is weakening nature’s ability to absorb CO2, while technological solutions remain uncertain.

“All of those technologies come with risks,” said Riahi, director of the Energy, Climate and Environment Program at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, an Austria-based research centre.

The aim should therefore be to keep the overshoot as low as possible so the world does not have to depend heavily on carbon-removal technologies later, he said.

UNEP had already warned in its September report that large-scale carbon removal carried major risks. “Removal on such a scale is costly and risky,” UNEP science advisor Anne Olhoff said.

Solar boom, fossil reliance

One area in which progress has been made is clean energy. Solar power has expanded seven times faster than expected since the Paris Agreement, the report found, while renewables are on track to meet the goal of tripling global capacity by 2030.

Andersen said this showed climate policies can work, although clean-energy growth alone would not be enough.

Fossil-fuel use has not fallen at the same pace.

Oil, gas and coal still provide 80-86 percent of the world’s energy supply, while demand is rising with growth in emerging economies, electric vehicle sales and data centres. Reducing energy demand, which science recognises as an effective way to cut emissions, is not mentioned in the report.

Countries in attendance at the Cop28 UN climate summit in Dubai in 2023 agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems.

“Developing renewable energy is of course critically important, but we increasingly need to focus on phasing out fossil fuels. We are not seeing progress anywhere near what is needed,” Olhoff said.

This article was adapted from the original version in French by Géraud Bosman-Delzons.

Monday, October 19, 2026

 

Factoring daily weather extremes into glacier models reveals greater glacier loss and faster sea-level rise



More realistic simulations of glacier melt results in greater projected ice loss by the end of the century




Vrije Universiteit Brussel






A new study led by researchers at ETH Zurich (Switzerland) and the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Belgium) reveals that glaciers worldwide could lose ice faster than previously projected. Published today in Nature Communications, the research shows that accounting for daily weather variability leads to more realistic simulations of glacier melt and results in greater projected ice loss by the end of the century. The findings highlight the importance of short-lived weather events, such as the exceptional heatwaves and extreme melt seasons recently observed in several glacierised regions around the Globe.

Why daily weather matters

Most global glacier models rely on monthly climate data, which smooth out short-term weather fluctuations. Yet glaciers respond rapidly to individual weather events, including heatwaves, heavy precipitation and sudden temperature changes. A few exceptionally warm days can rapidly remove protective snow cover, exposing darker glacier ice that absorbs more sunlight and melts faster. Similarly, whether heavy precipitation falls as rain or snow can strongly influence glacier accumulation and runoff, particularly when temperatures fluctuate around the freezing point. By resolving these processes day by day, the model better captures rapid transitions between snow-covered and exposed ice surfaces, as well as the associated changes in melting.

“Glaciers don't respond to monthly averages, but to the weather they experience every single day,” explains lead author Lander Van Tricht (ETH Zurich / WSL / Vrije Universiteit Brussel). “A heatwave lasting only a few days can cause enormous amounts of ice to melt. By averaging weather conditions over an entire month, we risk underestimating the impact of these extreme events.”

To better capture these processes, the researchers extended the Global Glacier Evolution Model (GloGEM) to operate at daily resolution, applying it to more than 12,500 glaciers representing 94% of the world's glacier ice volume. Compared with the traditional monthly approach, the enhanced model better reproduces observed glacier mass loss, particularly during exceptional melt years such as 2022 in the European Alps, 2023 in Western North America, 2024 in Svalbard, 2025 in Central Asia and 2026 again in the European Alps.

Extreme melt years could shape the future of glaciers

The study shows that the effects of daily weather variability accumulate over time. When projected into the future, the daily model generally predicts faster glacier retreat and greater ice loss than its monthly counterpart, particularly in regions where melting is strongly influenced by short-term temperature fluctuations. This also translates into a larger projected contribution to global sea-level rise. The daily model used in this study projects a 5-10% higher 21st century contribution from glaciers to sea-level rise than its monthly counterpart.

“Our findings suggest that existing global projections, which typically rely on monthly climate forcing, may underestimate how quickly glaciers will lose ice in a warming world,” says Van Tricht. “It is not only the gradual rise in temperature that matters. Extreme melt events, like those we have recently witnessed in the European Alps and other regions, can have lasting consequences for glaciers. Capturing these events is therefore essential to better understand their future.”

Beyond glacier retreat and sea-level rise, the study also reveals important changes in the timing and intensity of glacier meltwater runoff, with implications for downstream water resources.

“Glaciers are an important source of freshwater for millions of people,” explains Harry Zekollari (Vrije Universiteit Brussel) who co-supervised the study. “Understanding not only how much ice will disappear, but also when meltwater becomes available, is crucial for anticipating future changes in water availability. Our study shows that resolving daily weather variability can substantially improve our understanding of these changes.”

Reference

Van Tricht, L., Huss, M., Zekollari, H., et al. (2026). Resolving short-term meteorological variability amplifies projected glacier loss and sea-level rise. Nature Communications. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-026-78260-y

Images and photos

Images_NatComms

Saturday, October 17, 2026

 

Satellite data reveal how Antarctica’s ice cliffs behave over time



The cliffs don’t always collapse in the runaway process that scientists had expected.




Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Ice Cliffs Calving

image: 

Researchers at MIT and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) analyzed over 15,000 ice cliffs in Antarctica to reveal how they behave over time.

view more 

Credit: Caroline Needell




With rising temperatures, the buttressing ice shelves at the edges the Antarctic ice sheet are melting and calving off at record rates, leaving behind sheer cliffs of solid ice. The stability of these exposed ice cliffs could influence how Antarctica further breaks apart and contributes to sea level rise around the world. 

Scientists have assumed that an ice cliff’s stability depends on its height: Ice cliffs that are taller than 100 meters — about the height of the Statue of Liberty — should collapse under their own weight. And once a cliff sloughs off, it should expose even taller, inland cliffs that collapse in turn. At least, that’s been the idea.

But researchers at MIT and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) have found that the stability of an ice cliff depends on more than its height. And even when a cliff topples, it doesn’t necessarily set off a runaway collapse. 

In a study appearing in Science, the team presents an analysis of over 15,000 ice cliffs in Antarctica that were monitored by satellites over a four-year period. They observed how the ice cliffs and the larger ice sheet evolved over time, and found that those ice cliffs that collapsed did so at a much faster rate than scientists had predicted. But these collapsing cliffs also quickly stabilized, instead of continuing to erode the larger ice sheet. 

“We found that when the cliffs were retreating, they were doing so faster than what has been modeled, which would mean more ice loss and higher contributions of sea level rise,” says study author Caroline Needell, a graduate student in the MIT-WHOI Joint Program. “But because we found that the retreat was short-lived, and all the glaciers eventually stabilized, that would suggest that things won’t be so bad. We don’t see this runaway effect.”

The study’s co-authors are Catherine Walker, assistant scientist at WHOI, and Jeremy Bassis, associate professor at the University of Michigan.

Ice height

In glacial science, ice cliff collapse is described by a process known as marine ice cliff instability (MICI), which assumes that if an ice cliff exceeds a critical height, it will collapse. If then a taller cliff is exposed, it too should collapse, triggering a cascade of instabilities that shrink and erode the ice sheet over time. 

In previous studies, scientists have characterized MICI mainly by modeling the physical properties of ice, scaling these relationships up to the size of an ice cliff and combining these predictions with a few observations of actual ice cliffs in Antarctica. Through these efforts, scientists had determined that ice cliffs become unstable and collapse when they are taller about 100 meters.  

“Predictive ice-sheet models that have been used so far to represent ice cliff instability just take into account cliff height,” Needell notes. “That’s the only variable that matters. And once the cliff height reaches the critical threshold, usually 100 meters, it should initiate this runaway effect of ice sheet retreat.”

But she and her colleagues wondered: How tall do ice cliffs really get? And when they collapse, do they really set off a runaway retreat? 

To answer these questions, they looked to data collected by NASA’s Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) — a satellite that passes over the Earth’s polar regions and uses a laser altimeter to measure the height of ice sheets, glaciers, sea ice, and the level of the ocean in and around Antarctica. 

The team collected the satellite’s data from 2019 to 2023, which included measurements every three months of over 15,000 ice cliffs. From this dataset, they observed that the average ice cliff was about 30 meters tall — much shorter than the proposed critical height. But they did see a few rare ice cliffs that exceeded 100 meters. 

They also looked for other features that might influence a cliff’s stability. Interestingly, they found that ice cliffs that more or less stayed in place over time also had thicker mélange — a term for the slushy mix of broken icebergs and sea ice that gathers at the front of an ice cliff. 

“We measured mélange height and found taller cliffs have thicker mélange, which could be a built-in stabilizing effect,” Needell explains.

The satellite data also showed that the height of the surrounding water can stabilize a cliff: The deeper the water, the more it can buoy and push back against the cliff, keeping it from collapsing. 

Glacial speed bump

“After we did that global analysis, we thought, ok, let’s zoom in on the tallest cliffs and see how they’re behaving,” Needell says.

The team focused in on four regions around the Antarctic ice sheet where the satellite captured the tallest ice cliffs, each about 100 meters tall, with one that was 127 meters tall. They compiled measurements of these four cliffs and how they evolved every three months, over four years. 

From these measurements, they saw that indeed, the tallest cliffs collapsed, and the ice sheet in those regions retreated, at a surprisingly faster rate than MICI models had predicted. 

“But that retreat was short-lived,” Needell notes. 

After that, the ice spread back out toward the ocean.

“It’s this rapid retreat, punctuated by periods of stabilization,” Needell says. “That was puzzling to us. Then, we thought: We need to look at all the things that affect cliff height.”

The first thing they considered was the topography of the land underneath the ice. If that topography is relatively flat, then the slope of the overlying ice sheet reflects that actual height of the ice itself. But if there’s a bump or rise in the land, the ice sitting directly over that bump is in fact shorter than it appears. The topography then could act as a literal speed bump, thinning the overlying ice, and making it less likely to collapse. 

When the researchers checked topographic measurements of Antarctic, they found that indeed, ice cliffs stabilized around regions where the land happened to rise up. 

They also found that the taller a cliff is, the faster they “thin out” — as they collapse, once tall cliffs settle into shorter, more stable cliffs that prevents further collapse. 

“Now we know what to look for,” Needell says. “We really need to know the bed topography, and we need to know the ice thinning rate, in order to get ice cliff instability right, because this value really matters in the context of projecting sea level rise.” 

This research was supported, in part, by NASA, the U.S. National Science Foundation, and the DOMINOS project, a component of the International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration.

###

Written by Jennifer Chu, MIT News