> Scientists fear the collapse of Thwaites Glacier could one day destabilize surrounding glaciers and eventually trigger up to 11 feet of global sea level rise.

11 feet == 3.35 meters.

This would be the impact of an unmitigated 10 ft rise in the bay area (the tool maxes out at 10 ft): https://i.imgur.com/op80PZQ.jpg

Tool used: https://coast.noaa.gov/slr

This article and the others in the series are very well illustrated with a mix of photos, videos, maps, and — perhaps of particular interest to HN readers — simple yet attractive diagrams explaining some of the science important to understanding this glacier and its impact.

Are you telling me I can look up projected ~11 feet sea rise coastal line, buy up cheap land, blow up the glacier and profit?

Perhaps briefly. Sea level rise is currently neatly tracking the IPCC's most pessimistic models. I don't think any of them model catastrophic events like glacier collapse.

If we lose Thwaites, the West Antarctic Ice Sheet's days are probably numbered, and you better factor in the Greenland Ice Sheet too. East Antarctic is losing mass now, at unprecedented rate. All seem to be accelerating, even formerly too cold East Antarctic.

Place your bets please. 3m or 20m rise? No more ice? I don't think anyone knows or is willing to guess when or where equilibrium lies. How soon? As the article hints, 10 years, 1,000 years, no one knows that either. Yet.

Unless Superman shows up to turn back time, yes.

10 years or 1,000 years. Just Thwaits or the entire West Antarctic Sheet?

I don’t see how this type of wild speculation is particularly useful, and can think of many ways that it’s counter-productive.

It’s something that should be studied. When the error bars are a little tighter than “nothing to see here for a millennia” to “most cities uninhabitable” then perhaps this becomes slightly more concerning than an extinction level asteroid strike?

You're commenting on an article about research into this very thing.

If you are a billionare, sea level rise is going to effect your wealth the MOST.

Most of the wealthist cities in the world are along the coast.

Sea level rise is not going to have much negative effect in inner Mongolia or Midwest.

So I am quite curious why rich people continue to ignore it.

Maybe they actually believe it to be a good thing somehow ?

A large component of the dutch GDP as well as population is below sea level. They have been building dykes since centuries. Considering the large coastline of the US, there is definitely a huge cost to climate change induced sea level rises, so some poorer settlements will likely be given up but on the other end I doubt that e.g. downtown boston will be one of those settlements. It's more a question of how economical mitigation measures are vs resettlement. Overall the costs and damages will vastly outnumber the (massive) investments that we'd have to do now to slow down climate change.

Living for today and profit today is a common human trait. We (unfortunately) think in human lifespan as a "long time" and many don't care what happens to future generations after they are gone :(

Sooo... invent technology to make rich people live forever for them to start to think on long term scales? Or they'll just build their mansions on the hills while the poor valley dwellers drown and die of old age? Interesting question.

The article mentions several prognoses for a timeline. It seems still we decades away from getting into the 3-4 feet range. Not that I personally think there is urgency for mankind. But not so much maybe for the wealth of a billionare.

when*

will*

FTFY