FYI.

This story is over 5 years old.

Tech

Two-Thirds of Canada's Glaciers Will Disappear by 2100, Study Finds

“We have to take charge of this and not make things worse.”
​Projected deglaciation of the Frank Mackie region over the next century. Image: Garry Clarke

Canada stands to lose about 70 percent of its glaciers by 2100, according to a new study published today in Nature Geoscience. This dramatic projected loss reflects a global trend of rapid glacier recession due to climate change, which has far-reaching economic, ecological, and social consequences.

"It's a worldwide experience of glacier loss, and that's well-documented," glaciologist Garry Clarke, the lead author of the study, told me over the phone. "We have to take charge of this and not make things worse."

Advertisement

British Columbia's Salmon Glacier. Image: Strontium87

What sets Clarke's research apart from previous deglaciation studies is its high precision. The standard way of predicting glacial dynamics is called a surface mass balance model, which is based on the rate of both sublimation and melt in glaciers.

However, these models do not account for the complex dynamics of ice flow within glaciers, which significantly influences their development. To address this issue, Clarke and his colleagues developed physics-based models that do account for ice flow, and integrated them into the standard surface mass balance approach. Then, the team simulated a number of different 21st century climate scenarios, ranging from optimistic to bleak.

"We essentially got annual snapshots for every place that has glaciers in British Columbia following six different general circulation models, and four different emission scenarios," Clarke explained.

"The one that looks pretty dire […] seems to be the one that matched most closely to present behavior on our planet," he said. "So the track we're on at the moment is leading the worst outcome."

Projected deglaciation of the Columbia Icefield over the next century. Image: Garry Clarke

As evidenced by the above projection for Columbia Icefield, the report finds the vast majority of Canadian glaciers will disappear by the turn of the 22nd century. This endgame will have far-reaching consequences, because melting glaciers not only contribute to rising sea levels, they are also an important source of fresh water.

Advertisement

"Glaciers deliver water in the hottest, driest months of the year, when there aren't other sources," Clarke told me. He pointed out that humans aren't the only species that require this ongoing influx of cold water, because glacier melt also impacts the freshwater ecology of rivers and streams.

"We have a favorable situation for cool water fishes like trout and salmon," he said. "We take that away, we'll be not favoring those species anymore so there will be some readjustment."

As ominous as all this sounds for Canadians, Clarke said that other regions are facing even more cataclysmic losses when it comes to glacial recession. For example, Canada's small population and alternate sources of freshwater, such as precipitation, might help mitigate some of the most harmful side effects of deglaciation.

"In a way, [Canada's story] is a better story because we're not relying on our glaciers to the extent that some other countries do," Clarke told me. "There will be impacts here, and they are not going to be good ones. We will lose the beauty of the landscape. But other places are going to lose a lot more than that. They are going to lose the ability to sustain life, in some parts of Asia."

A massive glacier system in China. Credit: NASA Earth Observatory/Jesse Allen

At this point, it is too late to completely prevent glacial recession over the coming decades, but curbing our carbon emissions is a good place to start if we want this trend to slow down.

"It takes a very long time to take the carbon naturally out of the atmosphere," said Clarke. "It'll stay there for 10,000 years, so even if we suddenly, at the very last gasp, decide to behave perfectly, it will not buy us an advantage. We'll be essentially locked in to what we've already laid out for ourselves."

"The sooner we get at it, the more we'll be saving," he added, "and the cheaper it will be to deal with the consequences."