9 ms·

Before-and-after images show how Greenland's glaciers have rapidly retreated

144 points by vinnyglennon 3y ago

skymast 3y ago
[dead]
Reason077 3y ago
It's possibly even more dramatic than this in New Zealand. As a kid in the late 80s/early 90s, I remember being pretty awestruck by the Franz Joseph glacier. You could park your car, walk up from the road and in a few minutes be standing on a vast field of ice. Now days you can't even see it from the road. You can't walk up either because the track has been closed due to erosion. The only way to get on the ice is with a helicopter. It's retreated by many kilometres in just those ~30 years. Same story on the Tasman glacier, which is now mostly a lake which sometimes has a few icebergs floating in it.
- tornato7 3y ago
  This is a timely comment because I just booked a trip to New Zealand with a stop at Franz Josef and didn't realize it could only be accessed by helicopter. Are there any other glaciers around there that can be accessed via hike?
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - arbitrary_name 3y ago
    It seems somewhat ironic to travel 1000s of miles by plane to NZ, with all the attendant climate impacts, and not be able to see the glacier due to those impacts...
    - oh_sigh 3y ago
      SFO->CHC->SFO is about ~2000kg of CO2 per person[0], compared to the average American yearly emissions of 15,000 kg[1] Rural folk emit about 20% more CO2[2] than city dwellers in the US, so if OP lives in a city, even flying to NZ and back once a year puts him at less climate impact than an average rural American. [0] https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html#:~:text=CO2%20emissions%20from%20aviation%20fuel,CO2%20per%20passenger%20per%20hour https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html#:~:text=CO2%20emis.... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/#:~:text=Per%20capita%20carbon%20dioxide%20emissions,1973%2C%20when%20the%20average%20U.S https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon.... [2]https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2020/02/the-unexpected-drivers-of-carbon-footprints/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20rural%20carbon%20footprint,to%20transportation%20and%20home%20heating https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2020/02/the-unexpected-....
      - chickenchicken 3y ago
        Because the Americans are the number one polluters regarding CO2.
        Reason077 3y ago
        Strictly speaking this is not true. Canada, Australia, and some of the gulf states have worse CO2 emissions per capita than the United States. On the basis of total CO2 emissions, the USA is the second worst, but is far behind China. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
        defrost 3y ago
        > Strictly speaking this is not true. Canada, Australia, and some of the gulf states have worse CO2 emissions per capita than the United States. By personal lifestyle or by dint of providing resources to the hungry hungry hippos of the world? Outside of the Sheik Yerbouti's the average gulf citizen lives a sparse life - the region has high emissions due to fossil fuel extraction to supply mostly elsewhere. Australia is an open pit mine; one state with ~2 million people and an area 3x that of Texas mines and exports 16x more iron ore per annum than peak annual mining in the entire USofA - the energy draw required to supply the world with steel isn't a per capita energy use of the Purnululu People *. Perhaps there's an issue with accounting? China, again, has been playing catch up with the USofA, much of it's climb in energy use was due to outsourced US supply for an exuberence of consummerism. We've known where fossil fuel use was headed since the 1970s and still the west fell for the Koch brand of greed is good, burn more coal baby, public transport sucks, BuyMore on ConsumerHoliday propaganda - this set the tone for the world to follow as an aspiration goal and shucking responsibility for outsourcing carbon consumption isn't a great look. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmKxmxk6Gas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmKxmxk6Gas
- ghoul2 3y ago
  I visited Franz Josef glacier twice, once in 2000 and next in 2002. Just between those two years the retreat was so major, it spooked me. First time, one crossed the bridge and within a couple minutes walk you were at the mouth of the glacier. Two years later, it was now over a half-n-hour walk.
aninteger 3y ago
This reminds me of the story Alaska Public Media ran about the Mendenhall glacier also receding so quickly it might be gone by 2050 [1]. [1] https://alaskapublic.org/2023/08/07/crammed-with-tourists-juneau-wonders-what-will-happen-as-mendenhall-glacier-recedes/ https://alaskapublic.org/2023/08/07/crammed-with-tourists-ju...
- derbOac 3y ago
  Going to the Harding Icefield every 10 years or so has been sobering. The drive to the foot of the glacier is telling enough, with markers of where the glacier was at different years as you drive in. But hiking to find the edge of the icefield and realizing how far you have to go this time makes you viscerally aware of climate change and loss of ice.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
Kurzgezazegg’t posted a video showing all of the Earth’s six billion year history in one hour. Time flows at about a million years per second: https://youtu.be/S7TUe5w6RHo?si=_KK15QPAqJLTxLQj https://youtu.be/S7TUe5w6RHo?si=_KK15QPAqJLTxLQj It gives a nice perspective, and it’s a visceral reminder that the planet has been through far worse than us. I find it comforting that even if we drive ourselves to extinction, life itself will continue on. And in the multicellular era, too. This is important, because whoever (or whatever) comes after us might still have a shot at colonizing Mars. It may seem like Earth has lots of time to do it, but the video shows just how precious our tiny slice is.
- AtlasBarfed 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - cyberlurker 3y ago
    Just wanted to point out that life likely introduced Oxygen into the atmosphere.
  - breakyerself 3y ago
    Yeah I take zero comfort in knowing life will go on after we go extinct. I'd do anything to ensure my child has a future and if she chooses to have kids I'd do anything to secure them a future here.
    - sillysaurusx 3y ago
      Well, yes. But we are a blip. Ten thousand lifetimes (roughly 40,000 generations) elapse every second of that video, and it’s over an hour long. Meanwhile your great grandchild "will have more in common with the stranger they married than they could ever have with you." https://youtu.be/wCA7sGZKFIY?si=LsBpPstKnpbVRBl5 https://youtu.be/wCA7sGZKFIY?si=LsBpPstKnpbVRBl5 We like to feel so important. And we are. But rooting for Team Earth to spread out beyond our planet gives me some comfort, rather than the existential horror of cosmic time scales relative to human lives. That’d be a bit like a fruit fly pining away that it only lives a few dozen hours, which must feel like a lifetime to it.
xwdv 3y ago
I’m skeptical. Yea the images might look a bit different, but this could be due to colorization making it easier to see snow vs dirt and grass. The zoom on one of the images isn’t the same, you can’t just zoom on the one area that has glacier and crop out the rest of the water, and wide angles make everything look more dramatic. In real life it could just be a few acres. I’ve taken photos in small lakes that look like massive oceans, with barely a shoreline in sight.
- hobobaggins 3y ago
  It's definitely an odd article, and I'd like to see an actual before-and-after, rather than just some "comparison" shots from completely different angles, zoom, etc. It's not like they can't take the photo from the same position and location as the original, and the retouching makes it especially hard to tell how much photoshopping was actually done to possibly fit an agenda.
- erk__ 3y ago
  You can have a look at other sources such as PROMICE which keeps a look on it, they have recorded that they have been shrinking for the past 27 years: https://promice.org/2023/10/05/the-greenland-ice-sheet-has-receded-27-years-in-a-row/ https://promice.org/2023/10/05/the-greenland-ice-sheet-has-r... They also have the raw data since 1840 if you would like to look at that.
- ars 3y ago
  I don't know why you're being downvoted - I have the same issue. The photos just don't show that dramatic a change, if anything they show barely any change at all. The article makes it seem like we'll see some huge thing, but we don't. Some of the photos have tire tracks, and the change in ice is like the size of a few cars - that's not really much. I'm not saying there isn't a change, but these photos certainly don't show it.
  - olddustytrail 3y ago
    Did the slider fail to load for you guys? I was wondering about the weird photos but it's very clear when you use the slider. It failed to load the first time for me.
rc_mob 3y ago
At least us humans have the intelligence to document our own extinction. The people that come after will be able to see what we did. Oh wait ..
- RHSman2 3y ago
  We’ll need an app: digital to rock carvings.
  - cratermoon 3y ago
    This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here.
    - jacquesm 3y ago
      At the rate we're going it might be more something along the lines of 'If you can read this and your geologists uncovered buried cities then welcome, Aliens. And if we are your ancestors: by some miracle we seem to have survived'.
    - chickenchicken 3y ago
      This is so stupid. Just use comics. Like the Aegyptians.
      - cratermoon 3y ago
        I like the idea of vaulting dangerous stuff in a way that requires advanced technology to open. The idea being that if a civilization is advanced enough to open the box, they'll have the tech to detect the hazard, and maybe even mitigate it.
readthenotes1 3y ago
Make Greenland Green Again!
specialist 3y ago
We need moon shot projects for preserving and replenishing glaciers and snow packs. One notion I've read is pumping out the hidden rivers of snow melt. This would minimize movement of the ice on top (towards the sea). What other crazy ideas should we try? Some how increase the albedo by counter acting soot? Create massive snow machines? Envelope ice fields in fog during the summer?
- ip26 3y ago
  Albedo enhancement certainly seems the most possible, such as with a quick flight to layer over rock dust, but the potential benefit is so limited. Cloud seeding perhaps, but only if the moisture is there in the air. Fog is a fun thought… ablate the outer millimeter to create an insulating layer. You could bore tunnels in the ice and circulate coolant, but you would accelerate melting of the upper portion to fight melting on the lower.
- timeon 3y ago
  > What other crazy ideas should we try? Stop using fossil fuels would be one.
  - specialist 3y ago
    Of course. The loss of glaciers and polar ice is already locked in. Atmospheric carbon continues to affect the climate for > 100 years. If humans stopped emitting all carbon today, climate crisis will continue. For natural glacial formation to resume, lower than 350ppm?, we have to go beyond net negative to net negative. We've kicked off multiple negative feedback loops. We have to remove carbon faster than the tundra thaws, the oceans acidify, and the forests burn. I'm certain you know all of this. Are we just going to sit back and watch all the ice melt?
- arbitrary_name 3y ago
  Here's a crazy one: reducing emissions!
bparsons 3y ago
It's hard to appreciate the scale of these places unless you have visited them. For glacier complexes in parts of Canada and Alaska, you are looking at big-city sized areas of ice that are completely gone. The really alarming thing is when you notice a big change after just a few years. Everything down slope is impacted. Water volumes, soil moisture, vegetation, etc in the entire watershed can rapidly change once the glacier dries up. Farmers and municipal water authorities are most acutely aware of these changes, but it touches everything.
- jotaen 3y ago
  > It's hard to appreciate the scale of these places unless you have visited them. I think what’s especially hard to grasp from pictures is not just the areal loss, but the massive amount of volume that has vanished. For example, the Aletsch glacier, (at a length of 23 km, the biggest one in the Alps) has lost more than 100m of thickness in only 150 years. If you stand on its surface as it is today, it’s impressive to realise what a sheer amount of ice there used to be above your head and around you just a few decades ago.
johnnyYen 3y ago
and yet Greenland is gaining ice https://electroverse.info/how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-really-fared-last-season-2022-2023/ https://electroverse.info/how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-really... https://electroverse.info/increases-in-polar-bear-population-greenland-smb-above-average/ https://electroverse.info/increases-in-polar-bear-population...
- chickenchicken 3y ago
  Nope https://www.hydro-international.com/content/blog/is-the-arctic-ice-really-growing https://www.hydro-international.com/content/blog/is-the-arct...
- tanaros 3y ago
  > and yet Greenland is gaining ice Your first link doesn’t seem to show this. It shows that the rate of loss has slowed over the past few years, but it’s still losing mass every year.
jzl 3y ago
The movie Chasing Ice documents this phenomenon about as effectively as could possibly be done. A must see.
TheRealDevonMcC 3y ago
I found the pictures in this article to be confusing - are they showing two shots of the same place or two shots of contiguous areas?
- jotaen 3y ago
  It appears they used original historic images from 1930, and overlayed them with a recent picture taken from (roughly) the same position and with the same angle as the original one. So it’s basically like a leap in time of the very same perspective, 100 years apart.

144 points by vinnyglennon 3y ago

[dead]

It's possibly even more dramatic than this in New Zealand. As a kid in the late 80s/early 90s, I remember being pretty awestruck by the Franz Joseph glacier. You could park your car, walk up from the road and in a few minutes be standing on a vast field of ice. Now days you can't even see it from the road. You can't walk up either because the track has been closed due to erosion. The only way to get on the ice is with a helicopter. It's retreated by many kilometres in just those ~30 years. Same story on the Tasman glacier, which is now mostly a lake which sometimes has a few icebergs floating in it.

tornato7 3y ago
This is a timely comment because I just booked a trip to New Zealand with a stop at Franz Josef and didn't realize it could only be accessed by helicopter. Are there any other glaciers around there that can be accessed via hike?
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- arbitrary_name 3y ago
  It seems somewhat ironic to travel 1000s of miles by plane to NZ, with all the attendant climate impacts, and not be able to see the glacier due to those impacts...
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    SFO->CHC->SFO is about ~2000kg of CO2 per person[0], compared to the average American yearly emissions of 15,000 kg[1] Rural folk emit about 20% more CO2[2] than city dwellers in the US, so if OP lives in a city, even flying to NZ and back once a year puts him at less climate impact than an average rural American. [0] https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html#:~:text=CO2%20emissions%20from%20aviation%20fuel,CO2%20per%20passenger%20per%20hour https://www.carbonindependent.org/22.html#:~:text=CO2%20emis.... [1] https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-per-person/#:~:text=Per%20capita%20carbon%20dioxide%20emissions,1973%2C%20when%20the%20average%20U.S https://www.statista.com/statistics/1049662/fossil-us-carbon.... [2]https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2020/02/the-unexpected-drivers-of-carbon-footprints/#:~:text=Overall%2C%20the%20rural%20carbon%20footprint,to%20transportation%20and%20home%20heating https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2020/02/the-unexpected-....
    - chickenchicken 3y ago
      Because the Americans are the number one polluters regarding CO2.
      - Reason077 3y ago
        Strictly speaking this is not true. Canada, Australia, and some of the gulf states have worse CO2 emissions per capita than the United States. On the basis of total CO2 emissions, the USA is the second worst, but is far behind China. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...
        defrost 3y ago
        > Strictly speaking this is not true. Canada, Australia, and some of the gulf states have worse CO2 emissions per capita than the United States. By personal lifestyle or by dint of providing resources to the hungry hungry hippos of the world? Outside of the Sheik Yerbouti's the average gulf citizen lives a sparse life - the region has high emissions due to fossil fuel extraction to supply mostly elsewhere. Australia is an open pit mine; one state with ~2 million people and an area 3x that of Texas mines and exports 16x more iron ore per annum than peak annual mining in the entire USofA - the energy draw required to supply the world with steel isn't a per capita energy use of the Purnululu People *. Perhaps there's an issue with accounting? China, again, has been playing catch up with the USofA, much of it's climb in energy use was due to outsourced US supply for an exuberence of consummerism. We've known where fossil fuel use was headed since the 1970s and still the west fell for the Koch brand of greed is good, burn more coal baby, public transport sucks, BuyMore on ConsumerHoliday propaganda - this set the tone for the world to follow as an aspiration goal and shucking responsibility for outsourcing carbon consumption isn't a great look. * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmKxmxk6Gas https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmKxmxk6Gas
ghoul2 3y ago
I visited Franz Josef glacier twice, once in 2000 and next in 2002. Just between those two years the retreat was so major, it spooked me. First time, one crossed the bridge and within a couple minutes walk you were at the mouth of the glacier. Two years later, it was now over a half-n-hour walk.

aninteger 3y ago

This reminds me of the story Alaska Public Media ran about the Mendenhall glacier also receding so quickly it might be gone by 2050 [1]. [1] https://alaskapublic.org/2023/08/07/crammed-with-tourists-juneau-wonders-what-will-happen-as-mendenhall-glacier-recedes/ https://alaskapublic.org/2023/08/07/crammed-with-tourists-ju...

derbOac 3y ago
Going to the Harding Icefield every 10 years or so has been sobering. The drive to the foot of the glacier is telling enough, with markers of where the glacier was at different years as you drive in. But hiking to find the edge of the icefield and realizing how far you have to go this time makes you viscerally aware of climate change and loss of ice.

sillysaurusx 3y ago

Kurzgezazegg’t posted a video showing all of the Earth’s six billion year history in one hour. Time flows at about a million years per second: https://youtu.be/S7TUe5w6RHo?si=_KK15QPAqJLTxLQj https://youtu.be/S7TUe5w6RHo?si=_KK15QPAqJLTxLQj It gives a nice perspective, and it’s a visceral reminder that the planet has been through far worse than us. I find it comforting that even if we drive ourselves to extinction, life itself will continue on. And in the multicellular era, too. This is important, because whoever (or whatever) comes after us might still have a shot at colonizing Mars. It may seem like Earth has lots of time to do it, but the video shows just how precious our tiny slice is.

AtlasBarfed 3y ago
[flagged]
- cyberlurker 3y ago
  Just wanted to point out that life likely introduced Oxygen into the atmosphere.
- breakyerself 3y ago
  Yeah I take zero comfort in knowing life will go on after we go extinct. I'd do anything to ensure my child has a future and if she chooses to have kids I'd do anything to secure them a future here.
  - sillysaurusx 3y ago
    Well, yes. But we are a blip. Ten thousand lifetimes (roughly 40,000 generations) elapse every second of that video, and it’s over an hour long. Meanwhile your great grandchild "will have more in common with the stranger they married than they could ever have with you." https://youtu.be/wCA7sGZKFIY?si=LsBpPstKnpbVRBl5 https://youtu.be/wCA7sGZKFIY?si=LsBpPstKnpbVRBl5 We like to feel so important. And we are. But rooting for Team Earth to spread out beyond our planet gives me some comfort, rather than the existential horror of cosmic time scales relative to human lives. That’d be a bit like a fruit fly pining away that it only lives a few dozen hours, which must feel like a lifetime to it.

xwdv 3y ago

I’m skeptical. Yea the images might look a bit different, but this could be due to colorization making it easier to see snow vs dirt and grass. The zoom on one of the images isn’t the same, you can’t just zoom on the one area that has glacier and crop out the rest of the water, and wide angles make everything look more dramatic. In real life it could just be a few acres. I’ve taken photos in small lakes that look like massive oceans, with barely a shoreline in sight.

hobobaggins 3y ago
It's definitely an odd article, and I'd like to see an actual before-and-after, rather than just some "comparison" shots from completely different angles, zoom, etc. It's not like they can't take the photo from the same position and location as the original, and the retouching makes it especially hard to tell how much photoshopping was actually done to possibly fit an agenda.
erk__ 3y ago
You can have a look at other sources such as PROMICE which keeps a look on it, they have recorded that they have been shrinking for the past 27 years: https://promice.org/2023/10/05/the-greenland-ice-sheet-has-receded-27-years-in-a-row/ https://promice.org/2023/10/05/the-greenland-ice-sheet-has-r... They also have the raw data since 1840 if you would like to look at that.
ars 3y ago
I don't know why you're being downvoted - I have the same issue. The photos just don't show that dramatic a change, if anything they show barely any change at all. The article makes it seem like we'll see some huge thing, but we don't. Some of the photos have tire tracks, and the change in ice is like the size of a few cars - that's not really much. I'm not saying there isn't a change, but these photos certainly don't show it.
- olddustytrail 3y ago
  Did the slider fail to load for you guys? I was wondering about the weird photos but it's very clear when you use the slider. It failed to load the first time for me.

rc_mob 3y ago

At least us humans have the intelligence to document our own extinction. The people that come after will be able to see what we did. Oh wait ..

RHSman2 3y ago
We’ll need an app: digital to rock carvings.
- cratermoon 3y ago
  This place is not a place of honor... no highly esteemed deed is commemorated here... nothing valued is here.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    At the rate we're going it might be more something along the lines of 'If you can read this and your geologists uncovered buried cities then welcome, Aliens. And if we are your ancestors: by some miracle we seem to have survived'.
  - chickenchicken 3y ago
    This is so stupid. Just use comics. Like the Aegyptians.
    - cratermoon 3y ago
      I like the idea of vaulting dangerous stuff in a way that requires advanced technology to open. The idea being that if a civilization is advanced enough to open the box, they'll have the tech to detect the hazard, and maybe even mitigate it.

readthenotes1 3y ago

Make Greenland Green Again!

specialist 3y ago

We need moon shot projects for preserving and replenishing glaciers and snow packs. One notion I've read is pumping out the hidden rivers of snow melt. This would minimize movement of the ice on top (towards the sea). What other crazy ideas should we try? Some how increase the albedo by counter acting soot? Create massive snow machines? Envelope ice fields in fog during the summer?

ip26 3y ago
Albedo enhancement certainly seems the most possible, such as with a quick flight to layer over rock dust, but the potential benefit is so limited. Cloud seeding perhaps, but only if the moisture is there in the air. Fog is a fun thought… ablate the outer millimeter to create an insulating layer. You could bore tunnels in the ice and circulate coolant, but you would accelerate melting of the upper portion to fight melting on the lower.
timeon 3y ago
> What other crazy ideas should we try? Stop using fossil fuels would be one.
- specialist 3y ago
  Of course. The loss of glaciers and polar ice is already locked in. Atmospheric carbon continues to affect the climate for > 100 years. If humans stopped emitting all carbon today, climate crisis will continue. For natural glacial formation to resume, lower than 350ppm?, we have to go beyond net negative to net negative. We've kicked off multiple negative feedback loops. We have to remove carbon faster than the tundra thaws, the oceans acidify, and the forests burn. I'm certain you know all of this. Are we just going to sit back and watch all the ice melt?
arbitrary_name 3y ago
Here's a crazy one: reducing emissions!

bparsons 3y ago

It's hard to appreciate the scale of these places unless you have visited them. For glacier complexes in parts of Canada and Alaska, you are looking at big-city sized areas of ice that are completely gone. The really alarming thing is when you notice a big change after just a few years. Everything down slope is impacted. Water volumes, soil moisture, vegetation, etc in the entire watershed can rapidly change once the glacier dries up. Farmers and municipal water authorities are most acutely aware of these changes, but it touches everything.

jotaen 3y ago
> It's hard to appreciate the scale of these places unless you have visited them. I think what’s especially hard to grasp from pictures is not just the areal loss, but the massive amount of volume that has vanished. For example, the Aletsch glacier, (at a length of 23 km, the biggest one in the Alps) has lost more than 100m of thickness in only 150 years. If you stand on its surface as it is today, it’s impressive to realise what a sheer amount of ice there used to be above your head and around you just a few decades ago.

johnnyYen 3y ago

and yet Greenland is gaining ice https://electroverse.info/how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-really-fared-last-season-2022-2023/ https://electroverse.info/how-the-greenland-ice-sheet-really... https://electroverse.info/increases-in-polar-bear-population-greenland-smb-above-average/ https://electroverse.info/increases-in-polar-bear-population...

chickenchicken 3y ago
Nope https://www.hydro-international.com/content/blog/is-the-arctic-ice-really-growing https://www.hydro-international.com/content/blog/is-the-arct...
tanaros 3y ago
> and yet Greenland is gaining ice Your first link doesn’t seem to show this. It shows that the rate of loss has slowed over the past few years, but it’s still losing mass every year.

jzl 3y ago

The movie Chasing Ice documents this phenomenon about as effectively as could possibly be done. A must see.

TheRealDevonMcC 3y ago

I found the pictures in this article to be confusing - are they showing two shots of the same place or two shots of contiguous areas?

jotaen 3y ago
It appears they used original historic images from 1930, and overlayed them with a recent picture taken from (roughly) the same position and with the same angle as the original one. So it’s basically like a leap in time of the very same perspective, 100 years apart.