Essay by Eric Worrall

Alarmists claim a big glacier in Antarctica could “swallow parts of cities all over the world”.

How Australia will be impacted by the ‘doomsday glacier’ that could swallow cities

The collapse of this one glacier could raise sea levels enough to swallow cities all over the world.

Maddison Brennan-Mills
July 16, 2025 – 1:44PM

…

There’s a glacier in Antarctica so big and unstable that scientists from The International Thwaites Glacier Collaboration call it the “Doomsday Glacier”. 

…

Thwaites Glacier is in West Antarctica and is roughly the size of Great Britain. It’s more than 2 kilometres thick in places, which, when melted, is an astonishing amount of water. 

Scientists warn that if it fully collapses, it could raise global sea levels by approximately 65 centimetres. 

“If Thwaites Glacier collapses it would cause a rise of around 65cm (25 inches) in sea level,” said Dr Alastair Graham of the University of South Florida.

…

A 65 centimetre rise is enough to flood huge areas of low-lying land. Cities like New York, London, and Bangkok would see chronic inundation.

…

Read more: https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/how-australia-will-be-impacted-by-the-doomsday-glacier-that-could-swallow-cities/news-story/995bbda2e34fa6d68118af76a8e20c8c

Like all remotely plausible climate crisis, this doomsday scenario relies on people doing absolutely nothing to help themselves, to adapt and rectify issues.

In the Netherlands / Holland, they defeated the sea by building dikes and pumps to protect their fields. Much of Holland would be inundated by sea water long ago if it weren’t for anti-flooding systems which have been in place for centuries.

In the Italian city of Venice, they drove huge wooden pilings into the silt, and used it to create a stable foundation for one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

Some of the most impressive innovations in my opinion occurred in the 19th century United States. Entire cities were raised one floor, like Chicago (see picture at the top of the page) where buildings were jacked up, and Seattle, where streets were simply raised one floor, and what was formerly the street level became an underground tunnel network.

To believe this “Doomsday glacier” is a crisis requires believing people of today couldn’t replicate a feat performed almost two centuries ago by ancestors who mostly used hand tools.

And of course there is China and Singapore. Singapore today is significantly larger than the Singapore of 200 years ago, whenever they run out of realestate they pour a bit of concrete and reclaim large tracts of land from the sea.

Such work is still ongoing, on many different scales. I once lived in house which fronted onto a tidal river. The property title dated back to the time of Robin Hood’s King John around 1200AD, so part of it was underwater. The owner who moved in after I left had the floor raised 3ft, to reduce the risk of flooding. During the coming decades, individual home owners lucky enough to live in such beautiful places will deal with flood risk on their own dime, and local governments will eventually be prodded into raising streets prone to flood damage, or improving drainage and installing flood pumps.

If that glacier collapses, nobody will even notice – all the remedial work will have already been done.

How can anyone take such fake crisis seriously?

Sadly we have a Climategate email which may help answer this question, at least about how some alarmists feel. The author is the “Hide the Decline” former CRU director Dr. Phil Jones.

From: Phil Jones [redacted]
To: John Christy [redacted]
Subject: This and that
Date: Tue Jul 5 15:51:55 2005

John,

There has been some email traffic in the last few days to a week – quite a bit really, only a small part about MSU. The main part has been one of your House subcommittees wanting Mike Mann and others and IPCC to respond on how they produced their reconstructions and how IPCC produced their report. In case you want to look at this see later in the email !

Also this load of rubbish !

This is from an Australian at BMRC (not Neville Nicholls). It began from the attached article. What an idiot. The scientific community would come down on me in no uncertain terms if I said the world had cooled from 1998. OK it has but it is only 7 years of data and it isn’t statistically significant.

The Australian also alerted me to this blogging ! I think this is the term ! Luckily I don’t live in Australia.

[1]https://ift.tt/v3Hgn9h Unlike the UK, the public in Australia is very very naive about climate change, mostly because of our governments Kyoto stance, and because there is a proliferation of people with no climate knowledge at all that are prepared to do the gov bidding. Hence the general populace is at best confused, and at worst, antagonistic about climate change – for instance, at a recent rural meeting on drought, attended by politicians and around 2000 farmers, a Qld collegue – Dr Roger Stone – spoke about drought from a climatologist point of view, and suggested that climate change may be playing a role in Australias continuing drought+water problem. He was booed and heckled (and unfortunately some politicians applauded when this happened) – that’s what we’re dealing with due to columists such as the one I sent to you.

Now to your email. I have seen the latest Mears and Wentz paper (to Science), but am not reviewing it, thank goodness. I am reviewing a couple of papers on extremes, so that I can refer to them in the chapter for AR4. Somewhat circular, but I kept to my usual standards. The Hadley Centre are working on the day/night issue with sondes, but there are a lot of problems as there are very few sites in the tropics with both and where both can be distinguished. My own view if that the sondes are overdoing the cooling wrt MSU4 in the lower stratosphere, and some of this likely (IPCC definition) affects the upper troposphere as well. Sondes are a mess and the fact you get agreement with some of them is miraculous. Have you looked at individual sondes, rather than averages – particularly tropical ones? LKS is good, but the RATPAC update less so. As for being on the latest VG analysis, Kostya wanted it to use the surface data.

I thought the model comparisons were a useful aside, so agreed. Ben sent me a paper he’s submitted with lots of model comparisons that I also thought a useful addition to the subject.

As for resolving all this (as opposed to the dogfight) I’m hoping that CCSP will come up with something – a compromise. I might be naive in this respect. I hope you are still emailing and talking to Carl and Frank. How is CCSP going? Are you still on schedule for end of August for your open review?

What will be interesting is to see how IPCC pans out, as we’ve been told we can’t use any article that hasn’t been submitted by May 31. This date isn’t binding, but Aug 12 is a little more as this is when we must submit our next draft – the one everybody will be able to get access to and comment upon. The science isn’t going to stop from now until AR4 comes out in early 2007, so we are going to have to add in relevant new and important papers. I hope it is up to us to decide what is important and new. So, unless you get something to me soon, it won’t be in this version. It shouldn’t matter though, as it will be ridiculous to keep later drafts without it. We will be open to criticism though with what we do add in subsequent drafts. Someone is going to check the final version and the Aug 12 draft. This is partly why I’ve sent you the rest of this email. IPCC, me and whoever will get accused of being political, whatever we do. As you know, I’m not political. If anything, I would like to see the climate change happen, so the science could be proved right, regardless of the consequences. This isn’t being political, it is being selfish.

Cheers

Phil

Source: Partial excerpt Climategate Email 1120593115.txt

Luckily for the rest of us, those who are looking forward to any kind of noticeable climate crisis are doomed to disappointment.