This Antarctic glacier dramatically retreated. Then, its ice shelf totally collapsed (satellite image)

The mountainous and icy coastline of the Antarctic Peninsula
The mountainous and icy coastline of the Antarctic Peninsula. A marine terminating glacier in Antarctica. (Image credit: Professor Anna Hogg)

Another day, another retreating glacier. Today's casualty is Antarctica's Cadman Glacier, located on the western coast of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Using satellite images and in-situ oceanographic measurements to track Cadman Glacier for more than three decades, a team of scientists has reported a dramatic glacial retreat of 5 miles (8 kilometers). The change was quick, occurring over just 2.5 years between November 2018 and May 2021. Following that retreat, the tidewater glacier's ice shelf — the part of the glacier that floats on the surface of the ocean, but still remains anchored to land — completely collapsed.

"We were surprised to see the speed at which Cadman went from being an apparently stable glacier to one where we see sudden deterioration and significant ice loss," team lead Benjamin Wallis, a glaciologist at the University of Leeds, said in a statement

Related: Doomsday Glacier melting in Antarctica means terrible news for global sea level rise

Though Cadman Glacier has been thinning since the early 2000s — or possibly even as far back as the 1970s — the team suggests that warmer-than-normal ocean temperatures in 2018 and 2019 (exacerbated, in part, by human-driven global warming) likely accelerated the process, weakening the ice shelf to the point of collapse. Because ice shelves typically buttress the land-based part of a glacier, it's now expected that Cadman Glacier will lose water more rapidly. Currently, it drains some 2.38 billion tons (2.16 billion tonnes) of ice into the ocean annually, and that rate of flow will likely increase. Such glacial draining directly contributes to sea level rise, which threatens coastal regions across the globe.

Imagery from Copernicus Sentinel-2 shows the retreat of Cadman Glacier and the collapse of its ice shelf: the image on the left is from 2017 and the right from 2023. (Image credit: European Commission, European Space Agency, Copernicus Sentinel-2 Data, Benjamin Wallis)

And that's only part of the story.

"What was also curious was that the neighboring glaciers on this part of the west Antarctic Peninsula did not react in the same way, which may hold important lessons for the way we can better project how climate change will continue to affect this important and sensitive polar region," said Wallis.

The team hypothesizes that underwater ridges are acting as defensive barriers for nearby glaciers, protecting them from the warming sea — for now, anyway. But with ocean temperatures continuing to rise, subsea geology might not be able to protect the glaciers for much longer. As such, the team considers Cadman Glacier to be a "glaciological tipping point" that might indicate the future for its neighbors.

"What this new research shows is that apparently stable glaciers can switch very rapidly, becoming unstable almost without warning, and then thinning and retreating very strongly," said Professor Michael Meredith, from the British Antarctic Survey and a co-author of the study. "This emphasizes the need for a comprehensive ocean observing network around Antarctica, especially in regions close to glaciers that are especially hard to make measurements.”  

Join our Space Forums to keep talking space on the latest missions, night sky and more! And if you have a news tip, correction or comment, let us know at: community@space.com.

Stefanie Waldek
Contributing writer

Space.com contributing writer Stefanie Waldek is a self-taught space nerd and aviation geek who is passionate about all things spaceflight and astronomy. With a background in travel and design journalism, as well as a Bachelor of Arts degree from New York University, she specializes in the budding space tourism industry and Earth-based astrotourism. In her free time, you can find her watching rocket launches or looking up at the stars, wondering what is out there. Learn more about her work at www.stefaniewaldek.com.

  • Lara
    There's no way they can separate whatever's special about this glacier that made it do what it did even though it's neighbors did not behave the same way from natural shifts in climate (because didn't most of these glaciers form kind of around the same time) and then human causes.

    Any separation they're making is going to be ridiculous speculation. Because by their own admission they don't understand it. And as it stands, they're always finding new variables that have to do with this type of thing. So it's just stupid to me every time I see them just throw it in when there's not yet a justification for it. Just a base assumption that it's climate change. Like what if it's not. What if it's not this time
    Reply
  • Katoomba
    By the article's own admission, this particular glacier is an edge case that is not representative of the majority of glaciers in Antarctica. If I were more skeptical of the bias in scientific publications regarding climate change I would be inclined to conclude that the researches of this were cherry picking a glacier to fit their preconceived conclusions.
    Reply
  • Lydianon
    ...and Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned.
    I cannot understand willful ignorance. I get that people who have their money wrapped up in an industry that contributes to global warming will go to their death denying it's existence. But the other 2 commenters here for example - do they just enjoy being contrary? I would guess it's simple stupidity but I assume most people reading here are above average intelligence..? Well, apparently I'm probably not because I can't understand why some people are so adamant about their denial of the reality of global warming.
    Reply
  • Katoomba
    Lydianon said:
    ...and Nero played the fiddle while Rome burned.
    I cannot understand willful ignorance. I get that people who have their money wrapped up in an industry that contributes to global warming will go to their death denying it's existence. But the other 2 commenters here for example - do they just enjoy being contrary? I would guess it's simple stupidity but I assume most people reading here are above average intelligence..? Well, apparently I'm probably not because I can't understand why some people are so adamant about their denial of the reality of global warming.
    Glaciers retract and proceed as part of their natural processes. It's called 'calving'. The only way to show that calving is connected to global climate change is if it were part of a wide scale and long term trend. This study and the article makes no such connection but does imply conclusions about global warming that are pure unsubstantiated claims. There is nothing ignorant or stupid about critical analysis of such. That is part of the scientific method actually. At least you can admit that you don't understand criticism of claims of global warming. That is a good starting point for doing your own research and beginning the process of learning instead of just parroting your belief in something.
    Reply
  • Chronoman
    As a retired academic I have looked at one side vs the other arguments about "climate change", its causes, it's trends etc. It's obvious that this is another propaganda effort by the inventors of the covid scam. Human activity, compared to the impact of volcanic activity, the oceans, decomposing organic matter the world over does not impact CO2 levels. But then, CO2 levels FOLLOW, changes in temperature by more or less 800 years. So let's please shelve CO2 as an argument for a "green" economy, net zero bollocks etc. It's all nonsense. We need more CO2 because it makes plants grow really well. Climate changes over hundreds of years, but rather thousands. Less than that is weather, not climate. Climate changes due to all things out of human control, namely our path around the sun, solar activity, clouds etc. I'll stop here. All not as simple as I tried to represent here I know because climate is so complex and multi-faceted that climatologists, physicists etc acknowledge that we don't know how it works yet and therefore all those computer models are just attempts at trying to figure things out but they're basically useless. Let's focus on real science, truthful academic activity rather than paid for alarmist reports to politicians by academic prostitutes.
    Reply
  • Unclear Engineer
    While I agree that climate is changing, and I believe that humans are having an effect on that change, I think the discussions of how much effect humans are having and how much we can control it are not realistic.

    For one thing, just looking at the geological evidence tells us that the sea level in previous interglacial periods reached higher levels than exist today. So, even if humans are having no effect on sea level rise, it would still be stupid to assume that natural progression of this interglacial would not result in higher sea level. The peak sea level in the previous interglacial was about 25 feet higher than sea level is today. We need to recognize that sea level is definitely going to increase in our future, and start planning to live with that reality.

    For another thing, the geological evidence is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are related to climate is pretty clear. There were no ice ages when it was higher than when there were ice ages, looking over the last several million years. So, it is not inconceivable that human caused emissions of CO2 have altered the climate to preclude more ice ages in the future.

    However, that does not mean that climate will not continue to change. The Milankovitch Cycles surely will continue to affect climate. And, we really still don't understand exactly how Earth's climate actually changes with those cycles. There seem to be changes in atmospheric and oceanic circulation that cause swings in climate to be amplified, But, last time I checked, we still don't have climate models that can "back cast" the ice ages we have geological records of so as to match that geological data. So, we really don't have models that are "proven" with respect to how climate actually changes.

    So what I take from articles like this is that they are exploring the "how" and "how fast" aspects of the climate modeling efforts.

    Those are what is really unknown. I would bet large money that sea level is going to rise by 25 feet or more in our future, but I would not bet a dime on a schedule for that to happen. (So I do not expect to live long enough to collect on any such bets.)
    Reply