5 ms·

It's depressing. I recently finished a hike from Chamonix to Zermatt, which passes near a ton of glaciers in the Pennine Alps. They are all dying. Moraines expo

by exergy 7y ago

It's depressing. I recently finished a hike from Chamonix to Zermatt, which passes near a ton of glaciers in the Pennine Alps. They are all dying. Moraines exposed everywhere. What is supposed to be a glorious celebration of the beauty of the Alps turns instead into sombre contemplation of whether the next generation will ever know such beauty. Mer de Glace, near Chamonix, is a particularly tragicomic example because the authorities need to add more and more steps each year in order to take the tourists down to the glacier. It's receding that fast.

short_sells_poo 7y ago
At risk of prodding at a hornets' nest here, I'd like to raise a controversial question: Mostly everyone here agrees (including myself), that human contribution to global warming is going to have severe consequences and the rapid impact on glaciers is an early and visible symptom of this problem. However, I think most people also agree that the planet would be warming even without human involvement (albeit at a considerably slower pace). I don't know whether the glaciers would melt also during the natural warming of the planet, but I assume so given that there were periods in the geological history when it was much warmer in general and were no glaciers at these latitudes. Yes it is sad that in one or two generations the glaciers will be gone, but glaciers will come back when the next ice age comes around. On the other hand, there are living organisms which could likely survive the natural and more gradual warming, but will be driven to extinction by specifically the human contribution. These species are not coming back, ever. Certainly not naturally. So perhaps rather than ruminating about whether the next generation can look at large amounts of ice, we should concentrate on saving the parts of the ecosystem which once lost, cannot be recovered.
- kiliantics 7y ago
  the rapid melting of that ice is going to have some pretty large impacts on local eco systems, I don't think the issues are all that separable
- cameldrv 7y ago
  Would the planet be warming without human involvement? I'm not aware that this is a widely held scientific belief. I don't think anyone's "ruminating." As the great Howard Beale said: "I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first, you've got to get mad!" The Alps around Mt. Blanc are one of the most beautiful places in the world, and I'll probably cry next time I go back.
  - tathougies 7y ago
    I mean we're in the middle of an intetglacial period so yes. In geologic terms the last ice age is still ending. In an interglacial period, the northern hemisphere may lose all its glaciers as its done before.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  Indeed, nature re-creates it own equilibrium. However, glaciers are much more than "large amounts of ice" to be looked at: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-effects-of-melting-glaciers.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-effects-of-...
- jfengel 7y ago
  Glaciers are the charismatic megafauna of climate. They're easy to see and feel attachment to. Anybody paying attention to the science already grasps what is wrong and has at least some ideas about what to do. But an awful lot of people don't pay attention to the science -- not least because an enormous number of people deliberately obfuscate it -- and so you need other methods of persuasion. It's easier to get people to pay attention to large, attractive animals than to concern themselves with small, ugly ones even if the latter are more crucial to the food chain. We may not "need" the Alps glaciers, but they're easier to understand than a 0.1 pH drop in the oceans, and they have the same root cause. Among scientists it may feel dishonest to focus on truthful but not-critical aspects of climate change. Scientists were almost universally persuaded decades ago, yet action fails to come because scientists are only a tiny fraction of the population. Even a huge number of people calling for action against climate change don't really understand the science. Getting anything done, however, requires getting the attention of a majority of Americans, who produce massively-disproportionate carbon and are disproportionately likely to reject the evidence (or remain unpersuaded by it.) So yeah, I'd rather "concentrate on saving the parts of the ecosystem" that need to be saved. I'd rather be doing a lot of things. Instead, people focus on what is possible rather than what is needed.
  - blue_devil 7y ago
    This is not about "picking" glaciers to save, they are probably beyond salvation by now. And that is the point. If people can't be startled by the emblematic "victims" like glaciers and polar bears, can we even hope for urgency? :/
    - jfengel 7y ago
      I personally am really pessimistic -- cynical, even -- and you kinda don't want to hear my answer. I admire people who are trying and feel it's worth trying to understand their tactics and strategy. Of necessity that means non-rational arguments to appeal to non-rational people, so that means there might be a rationale to be learned. As I said, I doubt it. But it's just as well that somebody is trying, if that's how they wish to spend their time.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  A little more to it than that. There's an awful lot of glaciers in the Alps. I've no idea which rivers they feed, but I imagine quite a lot of the surrounding rivers are in part fed from the normal seasonal melt and groundwater. How much drinking water and farmland is dependent on those? Switzerland gets most of its electricity from hydro. Now the glaciers are melting they are getting more power from hydro - thanks to increased water flow. That's a strictly temporary arrangement. At some point they'll be mainly melted. Then what? The knock on effects of one glacier probably aren't much. In aggregate they could be enormous.
  - blue_devil 7y ago
    >>At some point they'll be mainly melted. Then what? Spot on. I was in Aosta Valley, Italy this summer and they were using glacial melt water at midday, in a 40 C heat, to sprinkle vast fields of grass, to be made into hay.
blue_devil 7y ago
I've been hiking/mountaineering in the Alps for the past decade, and have personally witnessed how fast they have been changing in the new climate. This summer was insanely, persistently, and consistently hot. In fact hiking, even at high altitudes, was becoming impossible without a great chance of a heat stroke. At 2700 m in July you could wear short sleeves at night. I was mostly shocked about how little environmental awareness there seems to be even in the very areas where glaciers supply water and energy. In Aosta, Italy they were watering grass fields to be used for cow feed. In France, Italy, Austria, the primary mode of transport is cars, and I've seen jams in the most unlikely places that rival jams in cities like London and SF. In all these places, I've witnessed local people burn piles of garbage in the open, instead of composting it. Probably only Switzerland stands out with reasonable public transport.

by exergy 7y ago

short_sells_poo 7y ago

At risk of prodding at a hornets' nest here, I'd like to raise a controversial question: Mostly everyone here agrees (including myself), that human contribution to global warming is going to have severe consequences and the rapid impact on glaciers is an early and visible symptom of this problem. However, I think most people also agree that the planet would be warming even without human involvement (albeit at a considerably slower pace). I don't know whether the glaciers would melt also during the natural warming of the planet, but I assume so given that there were periods in the geological history when it was much warmer in general and were no glaciers at these latitudes. Yes it is sad that in one or two generations the glaciers will be gone, but glaciers will come back when the next ice age comes around. On the other hand, there are living organisms which could likely survive the natural and more gradual warming, but will be driven to extinction by specifically the human contribution. These species are not coming back, ever. Certainly not naturally. So perhaps rather than ruminating about whether the next generation can look at large amounts of ice, we should concentrate on saving the parts of the ecosystem which once lost, cannot be recovered.

kiliantics 7y ago
the rapid melting of that ice is going to have some pretty large impacts on local eco systems, I don't think the issues are all that separable
cameldrv 7y ago
Would the planet be warming without human involvement? I'm not aware that this is a widely held scientific belief. I don't think anyone's "ruminating." As the great Howard Beale said: "I don't know what to do about the depression and the inflation and the Russians and the crime in the street. All I know is that first, you've got to get mad!" The Alps around Mt. Blanc are one of the most beautiful places in the world, and I'll probably cry next time I go back.
- tathougies 7y ago
  I mean we're in the middle of an intetglacial period so yes. In geologic terms the last ice age is still ending. In an interglacial period, the northern hemisphere may lose all its glaciers as its done before.
blue_devil 7y ago
Indeed, nature re-creates it own equilibrium. However, glaciers are much more than "large amounts of ice" to be looked at: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-effects-of-melting-glaciers.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-are-the-effects-of-...
jfengel 7y ago
Glaciers are the charismatic megafauna of climate. They're easy to see and feel attachment to. Anybody paying attention to the science already grasps what is wrong and has at least some ideas about what to do. But an awful lot of people don't pay attention to the science -- not least because an enormous number of people deliberately obfuscate it -- and so you need other methods of persuasion. It's easier to get people to pay attention to large, attractive animals than to concern themselves with small, ugly ones even if the latter are more crucial to the food chain. We may not "need" the Alps glaciers, but they're easier to understand than a 0.1 pH drop in the oceans, and they have the same root cause. Among scientists it may feel dishonest to focus on truthful but not-critical aspects of climate change. Scientists were almost universally persuaded decades ago, yet action fails to come because scientists are only a tiny fraction of the population. Even a huge number of people calling for action against climate change don't really understand the science. Getting anything done, however, requires getting the attention of a majority of Americans, who produce massively-disproportionate carbon and are disproportionately likely to reject the evidence (or remain unpersuaded by it.) So yeah, I'd rather "concentrate on saving the parts of the ecosystem" that need to be saved. I'd rather be doing a lot of things. Instead, people focus on what is possible rather than what is needed.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  This is not about "picking" glaciers to save, they are probably beyond salvation by now. And that is the point. If people can't be startled by the emblematic "victims" like glaciers and polar bears, can we even hope for urgency? :/
  - jfengel 7y ago
    I personally am really pessimistic -- cynical, even -- and you kinda don't want to hear my answer. I admire people who are trying and feel it's worth trying to understand their tactics and strategy. Of necessity that means non-rational arguments to appeal to non-rational people, so that means there might be a rationale to be learned. As I said, I doubt it. But it's just as well that somebody is trying, if that's how they wish to spend their time.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
A little more to it than that. There's an awful lot of glaciers in the Alps. I've no idea which rivers they feed, but I imagine quite a lot of the surrounding rivers are in part fed from the normal seasonal melt and groundwater. How much drinking water and farmland is dependent on those? Switzerland gets most of its electricity from hydro. Now the glaciers are melting they are getting more power from hydro - thanks to increased water flow. That's a strictly temporary arrangement. At some point they'll be mainly melted. Then what? The knock on effects of one glacier probably aren't much. In aggregate they could be enormous.
- blue_devil 7y ago
  >>At some point they'll be mainly melted. Then what? Spot on. I was in Aosta Valley, Italy this summer and they were using glacial melt water at midday, in a 40 C heat, to sprinkle vast fields of grass, to be made into hay.

blue_devil 7y ago

I've been hiking/mountaineering in the Alps for the past decade, and have personally witnessed how fast they have been changing in the new climate. This summer was insanely, persistently, and consistently hot. In fact hiking, even at high altitudes, was becoming impossible without a great chance of a heat stroke. At 2700 m in July you could wear short sleeves at night. I was mostly shocked about how little environmental awareness there seems to be even in the very areas where glaciers supply water and energy. In Aosta, Italy they were watering grass fields to be used for cow feed. In France, Italy, Austria, the primary mode of transport is cars, and I've seen jams in the most unlikely places that rival jams in cities like London and SF. In all these places, I've witnessed local people burn piles of garbage in the open, instead of composting it. Probably only Switzerland stands out with reasonable public transport.