7 ms·
Switzerland has lost 10% of its glaciers in the last two years
- sschueller 3y agoSadly no matter how green Switzerland becomes or is it won't help. It is too small to make any dent it global greenhouse gasses even if it wasn't too late already.
- throw_pm23 3y agoAlso, before the Swiss start congratulating themselves too much, it is not becoming green in any meaningful sense of the word, and its ecological footprint is waaaay larger than justified by its size and than most other parts of the world.
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago> It is too small to make any dent it global greenhouse gasses even if it wasn't too late already. It's not like wealthy "green" western countries don't have their share of blame when it comes to global warming and environmental damage, they just don't do it in their own back yard, and instead mostly export it to poor/developing countries where most of the dirty manufacturing of the goods they buy happens and where much of the dirty hydrocarbures get burned. It's already been documented through studies, that people in wealthy countries actually have bigger environmental footprint compared to people in poor countries (they travel, fly and drive a lot more, buy more stuff online and throw good stuff away more often, use a lot more AC and other energy hungry amenities like heated swimming pools, buy cars more often, etc.). Also, Switzerland is the world's leading coal trading hub. So while they don't use it very much themselves, similar to green Norway making bank on selling its oil to others, they defiantly build their wealth off profiteering from environmental destruction, so Switzerland is not innocent here.
- huytersd 3y agoSwitzerland is probably the best example of second hand exploitative wealth in the world. Shady middlemen for chocolate, minerals, diamonds, oil, coal, fucking Nestle etc. Kind of irrationally makes me hate that things are so hunky dory there.
- FirmwareBurner 3y agoOf course. Since WW2 it's been the major safe heaven of the most vile, shady and criminal wealthy elite. Unironically it's also where the elite goes to have their frozen corpses preserved until they can be resurrected in the future.[1] [1] https://www.tomorrow.bio/ https://www.tomorrow.bio/
- imjonse 3y agoI wonder if they could have referendums on keeping these shady middlemen and being a financial paradise or these are subject beyond popular debate.
- huytersd 3y agoEven the financial paradise aspect is exploitative. Every country in the world has reporting and transparency requirements so billionaires can’t just silently stack wealth and skip paying taxes but we’re going to be the one place that says, fuck everyone, we have no morals or ethical concerns, put your money here. I don’t know the laws on the ground but you probably won’t be able to referendum away massive, global corporations.
- renewiltord 3y agoThat's sort of true. It's why I stopped thinking about my carbon emissions. Even if I kill myself and bring myself to zero, the net carbon emissions per year will only move from 37.12 billion metric tonnes to about 37.12 billion metric tonnes. And if I 10x my emissions, net carbon emissions per year will still be 37.12 billion metric tonnes. It's been quite liberating, actually. I got rid of my motorcycle, got a Nissan Titan, and now I fly everywhere. Knowing that no matter how green I become doesn't matter and that if I 10x my emissions means that I'm free to act in whatever manner I choose!
- esarbe 3y agoWhile I don't have any intention of letting my carbon footprint balloon up, there's one point I thoroughly agree with you. This is not a problem that can be solved with individual responsibility. It just makes you feel guilty. This is a systemic, a societal problem. And until this is addressed by policy, law and international treaty, no manner of individual do-gooding will solve the issue.
- abdullahkhalids 3y agoSystematic problems are solved by political action. Political consensus to change the status quo emerges from a some group of society taking individual responsibility, and then demanding/voting that society changes to their model. If no one ever takes the shitty public transit, how will politicians know that they should invest in better transit. Individuals pay the price of taking that shitty public transit and then demonstrate/campaign for better. If fast fashion is to be ended, you don't keep buying the latest outfits from The Gap every year. You individually pay high prices for the lasting products from niche stores. Then you use your demand as material to go campaign publicly to change norms and/or ask politicians to tax/regulate fast fashion items. Sure, there are some places where politicians can judge general sentiment and make laws ahead of public sentiment change, but in a lot of cases its the other way around.
- landemva 3y agoIndividuals can purchase items created locally, rather than exporting manufacturing pollution to developing nations. As Bud Light sales drop showed, consumer purchasing choices can make change.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- irrational 3y agoHow much had it already lost before those two years? If the same rate of loss continues, how long will it take to reach 100%?
- hyperhello 3y agoInfinity if it’s a decay series, or 18 years if it’s a constant.
- civilitty 3y agoIt wouldn't be an infinite decay even in a world with spherical cows because the ice mass is the value decaying and eventually the ice is no longer heavy enough to be called a glacier.
- TeMPOraL 3y agoWhich makes estimating this particularly tricky (and pointless) because there's no obvious point at which a mass of ice turns from "glacier" to "not glacier". Better to pick something erring far towards "totally obviously not glacier" as a reference point.
- mrpopo 3y agoSorry to break it up to you, but the warming is accelerating, as the amount of GHGs is increasing year-by-year. So it may take even less.
- landemva 3y agoClimate and weather are cyclic, not linear.
- Daishiman 3y agoThe increase in CO2 is linear and as long as that continues to be the changes will be linear or higher.
- tiffanyh 3y agoDumb question: are glaciers from the last ice age? Or can new glaciers be formed / frozen today?
- karaterobot 3y agoNew glaciers can definitely form. A new glacier formed after the eruption of Mount St. Helens in 1980! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crater_Glacier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crater_Glacier
- tastyfreeze 3y agoWe are still in an ice age called the Quaternary Ice Age. It just happens to be a warmer period in the ice age. Glacier formation is a function of snowfall and melting. If more snow falls in winter than is melted in summer glaciers will eventually form and start flowing.
- tiffanyh 3y agoSo if glaciers can be new reformed, why is this article so concerning? Is it because glaciers are not reforming?
- tastyfreeze 3y agoIt states that there are 10% less glaciers in Switzerland than 2 years ago. So they have melted significantly. It fits the climate alarmism that sells papers and makes people think the world is ending. The amount of ice on Earth oscillates with the Milankovitch cycles and occasionally increases or decreases rapidly with major volcanic eruptions and cosmic impacts and sun activity. The last increase in ice was the so called "little ice age" (1300-1850). I do not believe that any amount of glacier melting is out of the ordinary for Earth. To me the only value articles like this provide is distributing observations of current ice levels and trends. https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycles-and-their-role-in-earths-climate/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2948/milankovitch-orbital-cycl... https://www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/the-effects-of-the-little-ice-age https://www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/the-effects-of-the-...
- jackhack 3y agoOK, but there are a few questions first. Is this change desirable, or undesirable? What is the correct number of glaciers and are we moving toward that or away from that number? Why? If we are expecting the world to stay the same and never change (homeostasis), then we expect what has never been before. Planetary history is one of heating-cooling cycles, occurring well before mankind existed.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y agoit is undesirable, because it is indicative of climate change which will negatively impact humanity a better number of glaciers is however many would indicate climate change which positively impacts humanity, or a lack of significant climate change philosophical stoned-speak about nothing staying the same and stuff going in cycles doesn't change the fact that this is an indicator of current and future climate bad for humanity
- francisofascii 3y agoIt is the speed of change that is the problem. Rather than asking what is the correct number, we should ask how fast are we approaching either extreme. Historically these cycles lasted about 100,000 years, so we can safely consider that as the ideal. So if we are at 10% glacial coverage now, we ideally be at 10% in 100 years, too.
- olalonde 3y agoWhy is weather news on HN?
- vitalurk 3y agoLots of VC cash stored there?
- Yeul 3y agoAffluent people in my country are already pivoting to Sweden for their wintersport vacation. They'll go to Antarctica if that's what it takes.
- rspoerri 3y agoThe problem with the speed of the melting is that neigter we, nor the nature has time to adapt. For anybody arguing that it has happened before, it did take hunderts or thousands of years. In this time plants were able to change theyr location by natural groth and migration. With the speed it is happening now, large areas might loose important plants. For example the swiss mountains are quite heavily populated. Those areas are often protected from loose rocks using forests. If it gets to hot for a type of tree, they might die. Those protections need to be replaced by safety constructions, which cost millions. Also the construction takes time. The same thing happens with water reservoirs. In other countries all water in the summer comes from glaciers. If the glaciers are gone, all rivers will dry up. On the bright side, we currently have negated the next ice age that comes in 10'000 years. We wont get glaciers hunderts of kilometers long all across switzerland. If we survive that long...
- eulgro 3y agoI was surprised to learn the other day that in some parts of the world, a 7ºC rise in 50 years was observed during the Younger Dryas period. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
- rspoerri 3y agoI guess it wasn't the best time to be living in either. Funnily, one of the older stories that is still told today speaks of a bunch of people that get on a boat, and everybody else drowns.
- OrvalWintermute 3y ago> On the bright side, we currently have negated the next ice age that comes in 10'000 years No. We are still coming out of a glacial maximum.
- olalonde 3y ago> The problem with the speed of the melting is that neigter we, nor the nature has time to adapt. It sounds like a theory that could be easily verified since Switzerland already lost 50% of its glaciers. Have there been deaths associated to it? Did rivers dry up? Did forests disappear? Did people lack time to adapt?
- nologic01 3y agoMost people are either 1) indifferent to the signals of accelerating climate change, revealing the very deep structural flaws on which modern economies have been built or 2) panicking, which reveals more or less the same. The cumulative impact of industrial scale human footprint cannot be undone in a hurry even if we were to commit economic suicide and return to the stone age. The process is autoregressive (alas more Swiss glaciers will melt) and may hit tipping points (permafrost melting accelerating temperature increase etc) before it gets controlled (assuming we even get to do the "right" things"). This kind of slow but steady and determined (over many decades) turning of the entire Homo Titanic to avoid the worst environmental disruption and settle into a workable equilibrium is an unheard of challenge. This is not the kind of game people know how to play. We are in uncharted territory, economically, politically and morally.
- landemva 3y agoA 3rd group has studied 1000s years of climate history and learned about cyclic variations. I still want to reduce pollution in general, including air particulates and chemicals in water.
- OrvalWintermute 3y agoRegardless of our thoughts on the solar, climate, and weather cycles. We must do more to control unnatural pollution, water pollutants, forever chemicals, deep acquifer draining, lead pipes, go everywhere plastics, etc.
- Daishiman 3y agoThose people have not made credible climate models.
- nologic01 3y agoThe multiple hundreds of IPCC scientists (from every corner of the planet) that are not comforted by the "it was ever thus" theory must be the largest science fraud in history according to that "3rd group".
- t0bia_s 3y agoI was in Austria on Pasterze glacier [1] few weeks ago. While I was hiking in valley that was not there 30 years ago, I had one question in my mind all the time. Glacier was formed hundred's years ago. So it was not there before. If we going back to previous state, we are living in incredible times where we are able to see huge landscape changes during one lifetime. I will probably tell my grandchildren in future that I seen glacier that is no longer there. Which is fascinating. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasterze_Glacier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pasterze_Glacier