UKH

Yes, and the glacial retreat from Pen y Pass is even worse. The snow and ice has all disappeared now to reveal a car park!!

It's even worse in the Lakes. Glacial retreat has revealed National Trust footpaths.

...and there was me trying to be serious

Have you asked yourself why receding glaciers reveal tools, jewellery, bodies, weapons, artefacts, farms and evidence of agricultural buildings. 

You have a lot of reading to do.

DC

French maps now indicate current glacial position and that from 1975 or so. Eye opening...

There have been plenty of discussions about this in the past (e.g. https://www.ukhillwalking.com/forums/expedition+alpine/shrinking_glaciers_-_ch...), and the effect is real, as anybody who has climbed in the area over the years can't fail to notice.

As do we all 😎

Thanks Rob, I knew there must be but my search found only news articles.

It strikes me though that discussions just document what people observe but don't seem to talk about what to do.

No doubt the naysayers will claim we are not to blame for climate change but my wife got it in one simple statement, 'Even if climate change is not man-made (which it is), I prefer the sort of world likely if we wean ourselves off non-renewables.'

So... conspiracy theorists will be ignored:

What can governments do about climate change?

What can we as individuals do about it?

Plenty

Very little

Not what my (economist) friend in the Bank of England says...business is very sensitive to consumer pressure...future economic planning in her region of the U.K. is all based on sustainability and business is fully engaged.

...and we can influence government too, with Covid as a pivot...decisions made now are formative

A lot of the bodies/materials etc are found because they fall onto the ice surface and are incorporated within it as snowfall transforms into ice. They're now melting out. Some of this stuff is over 4000 years old.

'> What can we as individuals do about it?

Very little'

Yes we can - get off the hamster wheel. Opt to work less, earn less, consume less, have more leisure time and use it for low impact activity. It's not hard.

I was with you up until the last sentence. Going against the grain of society to that extent is going to be very hard for most people. Working less and earning less isn't even going to be a possibility for a lot of people only just getting by as it is.

It might be an option worth striving for but pretending it's easy isn't honest or helpful.

Well you could try this:

Multi-century glacier fluctuations in the Swiss Alps during the Holocene
Joerin et al 2006, IGS, Univ Berne

In which you will find that the European Alps were essentially ice free 7000 years ago and from 10,000 to 3,300 years ago.

There were no government energy policies at that time. there was no subsidy-chasing climate-industrial complex either.

DC

This thread is not for debating climate science...that debate is taking place elsewhere between experts who reach consensus 👍

The irony of complaining about climate change related glacial retreat observed over the years of frequent short haul holidays to the alps?! 

Ps. I'll apologise if you walk or cycle to the alps. 

The Antarctic was also ice free a very long time ago, but that doesn't mean it's not melting now because of our actions. 

You might be interested in this account from Will Gadd of the state of the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro

https://explorersweb.com/2020/10/17/weekend-warm-up-the-last-ascent/

I actually think pushing back against 'climate change inevitability' is important for giving us back something important, which I think is getting lost...a sense that we can affect the world for good.

You're right it isn't easy but pushing back might be what we need as we struggle to challenge the direction we are heading as a species. Making positive change might be the very thing we need...and maybe it is the driver to 'growth', however it is defined - economically, socially, spiritually (whatever that is)

it often doesn't feel like it but most indicators in much (most?) of the world say we've never had it so good...life expectancy, health, prosperity. Though all these things are unequally distributed they have improved (massively) overall, as WHO and other bodies point out.

Yes, we're all to blame...point taken.

what do you suggest doing about it?

A discussion done to death on ukc already.

How about does it matter? What difference does the number of species on a little planet in a vast universe make? Does the composition of earths molecules change anything long term, as it's all going to be destroyed eventually anyway? 

Thank you...yes

What this is saying (and what has prompted this post) is that recent acceleration is potentially terrifying. I was shocked looking recently at satellite photos...I've not done a formal study but I have looked at these on and off (Alpine dreamin') and the impression I have is that recent changes are dramatic.

Those who formally study these things seem to be saying the same...it's just that I'm now seeing these changes for myself and they are profound

'A discussion done to death on ukc already.'

...no doubt, yet here we are 🖖

We're only here until the next extinction event, we might as well enjoy the ride.

(More seriously though, Bronze-age era mangled tree stumps get spat out of the snout of the Mere de Glace - what does that tell you?)

Ask an expert?

Honestly! The tactics of the sceptics are always the same 'nothing can be done' and claim science is on their side by posting a reference or two.

I know enough about science to know how it works when it works well and how it can be twisted to work poorly.

This thread is offering the chance to discuss what could be done (what we can do) if the current scientific consensus is right.

...or you could stay on, disrupt things and prove that sceptics are just here to waste time.

Either way is fine by me...meanwhile '...the time is getting late...' (there must be some way outta here) 🤓

Yes, the rate of glacial retreat is dramatic, as shown here: 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-...

Unfortunately, many of the most dramatic impacts take place in remote areas, far from civilisation and from seats of government, and so it is still possible for governments to avoid the urgency of the situation. I would like to be optimistic, but having been banging on about this for the last 30 years or so, I think the ship has sailed some time ago. 

Please keep bangin' on...

What the sceptics often seem not to get is that 'the concerned' would like nothing better than to be wrong

eg yesterday I WOULD have booked the flight to Stockholm to go sea kayaking in the Lofoten Islands next year

You can get the train as far as Bodø or Narvik.  Or paddle an area further south? Bohulsan / Kosterhavet. 

So you want to debate what can be done, without debating if its necessary/ if AGW is a threat - genuine question.

Yep...night train from Malmo to Narvik after overnight in Hamburg (seat61.com). Probably going for it 2022 tho' because of virus uncertainty.

Booking cheap trains is more complex and it needs commitment and organisation but it is one of the changes I am making while governments get themselves sorted out.

You have to book singles on the day they are released to get cheap tickets - 180 days for Eurostar and 120 most others. I set diary reminders and booked them in sequence as the booking windows opened.

I had a very competitive trip to Turin (cost and convenience) booked for April 15th 2020 ☹️ (I couldn't go of course) - it left Birmingham about 7am and arrived Turin 8:25pm. Competitive on cost because I was taking musical equipment which would have added an extra £50

FYI Paris - Turin £26 single was most eye-catching ticket purchased. Overall cost of B'ham to Turin return was about £200 

Booking rail tickets needs to be made easier and compete in price and convenience with air travel. Probably cheaper to do this than fry the planet but then that would mean listening to expert consensus

As I'm writing Trump has just tweeted '...if Biden gets elected he'll listen to scientists!' 😱😂

We as a species have placed a value on other species, those which are pretty or look good on tv obviously have most value. Us humans only evolved because of a previous mass extinction. We've just decided that some how this is the most important point in earth's evolution and it should be frozen and preserved. 

The only good argument for preventing climate change is to reduce wars and suffering of human living today through for example starvation, as the ones who'll suffer most aren't those that are causing it. 

'So you want to debate what can be done...'

Yes, for the reasons stated...in case you missed it, let the experts have the debate.

On some things I am an expert and I'll happily debate those

I'm extremely fatalistic about climate change, and in any event, if we are minded to spend trillions on solving it, I'm sure the third world could find much better homes for the money. I like the thinking of the Copenhagen consensus on this.

I think we broadly agree

The sleeper trains in sweden are getting more popular and routes into Europe expanding, but you'll need to be on the ball booking. The same with accommodation, it books up quickly, the best places are gone 364 days ahead, as you say you need to be online as the calendars open up new dates. 

I can't let you get away with saying "the Alps were essentially ice free 7000 years ago". The paper by Joerin et al 2006 in the journal entitled 'Holocene' does not show anything of the sort. It merely says that most of a small sample of Swiss glaciers were shorter at ~7000 cal yr BP than they were in 1985. Here's the link.  https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1191/0959683606hl964rp

You say that as if it's a weak case!

Given the effects will be predominantly in the "third world", there is no real difference.

Well...the climate sceptics are proving true to form.

If you want to debate the reasons some people ignore the scientific consensus you can do it on another thread...or stay on here and many will draw their own conclusions about what commonly goes on.

The science is at consensus...there is a political debate about whether we should ignore them.

This thread is about (assuming the science is correct) what we might be able to do about it...

Go on...make my day 😎

In terms of alpine glaciers, probably not much since at least another 20years of warming are locked, and probably more.  THey will retreat to 4000m(?).  Already summer alpinism in a traditional sense is not really possible.

Of course, but those are explained by natural phenomena, whereas the current trend can only be explained by attributing it to human activity.

"20years of warming are locked, and probably more.  THey will retreat to 4000m(?).  Already summer alpinism in a traditional sense is not really possible."

Sadly, yes... similar with another threatened love of mine - coral. It's now rare to see really healthy coral in eg Florida. I've seen patches of it though...and they stand out but 90% of coral will probably die in my lifetime.

...and before anybody points it out, yes, by flying to get there (repeatedly) I contributed to the problem...but that doesn't mean I can't be part of the solution

You might find my friends website interesting

http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/students-3/

Yes, thank you...

I very nearly applied for a job there a few years ago but the 22 month deployment (and wife's refusal to also apply) put me off - Story of my life...I like the idea more than the reality 😂

No. It's just futile. You can't get many average joe westerners to social distance themselves a bit to potentially protect their own health now. The chance of making the majority of affluent westerners and those aspiring elsewhere to carry out some major life changes for the benefit of people they'll never meet, zero chance. 

Sent it to my son...and an article link from the site - he's currently applying for PhDs (Marine Biology) and is on the call list for potential jobs in Antarctica 

I think you underestimate people...I've had every opportunity to become cynical but people keep surprising me...with the thinking you propose we'd never have had eg the NHS (wot, pay for other people's treatment?)

Enlightened self interest (nay, survival) is likely to sway opinion but will it be too late?

UK has historically under funded through taxation. You'll get a clap though.

Probably. I think folk will be back to their old ways after covid. Much depends on getting rid of trump, the uk's effort is just a global rounding error. 

It's not an impossible problem to solve, certainly in this country we could get most of the way with technology that already exists, it's the will (both political and personal) that's lacking - https://www.cat.org.uk/new-report-zero-carbon-britain-rising-to-the-climate...

It's really worth talking about this issue on UKC or wherever you can, people can change their behaviour if they think it's important enough, sometimes seeing that other people are doing things (or not doing things...) is enough to make people think about what and how they are doing things.

There was also a completely different distribution of flora and fauna on a local scale, elephants were fluffy and were actually mammoths,massive cave bears roamed around, key ecosystem engineer species were unique and many are extinct.

On a global scale, the state of solar insolation was similar but not completely identical to present day, and furthermore the individual components of obliquity, precession and eccentricity were not quite the same as right now. We also know that volcanism can significantly influence regional and global climates on short timescales which could lead to local deviation in environment from what the Milankovitch cycles might suggest

In short, it's great to challenge ideas, but please do not conflate two interglacials based on one concept when actually constructing a quaternary environment requires a HUGE amount of data and understanding to uncover the complex factors that contribute toward the cryosphere and wider environment.

Yes , the environments were/are similar. 

No, this does not immediately discredit any sort of anthropogenic contribution to climate processes on any scale.

N.B if anyone does get attacked by a cave bear living in the Mont Blanc tunnel I will accept your argument.

Thanks...yes, I had heard of this report but haven't read it but will 

We met an interesting Frenchman near Arisaig in September who was working on storing energy in extremely high temperature molten metal encased in a magnetic field...to stop it melting its container.

Tech solutions are there and will develop...

Political will (in time) may not...

I'm not sure I want tech solutions to enable us to simply carry on 'business as usual' but that is another discussion

I very much agree that Government policy is key to changing practice and policy, however it is not helpful to suggest that individuals can not play a part. 

Not one individual but all individuals together - something called society. Each and everyone of us can make little decisions that decide how much impact we have on the environment. It's about make the right decisions yourself and setting best examples for othes.

The biggest proportion of UK emissions comes from domestic heating - we all decide how to heat our homes and how to insulate them. We can't just pass the buck.

Why do supermarkets wrap everything in plastic - because they people buy brands wrapped in more plastic.

Who votes for politicians, if they knew climate change was high on more voters prioritys they would say and do more about it.

It's not good making this a problem other people need to fix - we all need to!

Well said...

btw One little blow for freedom I've been salving my conscience with for a few years now is checking where fresh food has come from. If I stick to countries close by, flying is unlikely to be involved.

Who was it said, 'Every little helps'? Oh, yes that arch buck-passer, Tesco (and other supermarkets)

You are wrong, at least in part. It may be too late and to little but there are serious changes happening across society, some which weren't even on the horizon a few years ago.

Plastic straws, plastic bags.... ? Covid indirectly has done more than would have ever happened in the next decade without it. However the coming recession means no one will be spending £30k on a new electric car, they'll hang on to that old car. 

??That's nothing to do with climate change but plastic litter.

No, e.g. rapidly decarbonsing energy, seriously looking at embodied carbon in infrastructure,  moving from petrol/diesel for transport. Etc.

Seriously looking at? Or actually doing it? The UK has plenty rail not even electrified and that's before you consider electricty generation. 

It is changing, but it's creeping progress, not rapid by any measure. 

Saw this today (after following a link in the UKC Server hack thread).  Don't know how accurate it all is, but it's an eye-opener if it's even half right...

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Energy c02 about 60% of its peak in the UK, for example. House emissions about 70 (loads more potential here). Etc. Transport hasn't made.much progress, and I agree about rail electrification 

In reply to Dave Todd:

Thanks, I’m no expert but I think that’s accurate...

The problem has been that year on year variation has been much larger than the gradual changes in average temperature...sorting out trends from ‘noise’ has been the issue but the last decade seems to have resolved that one

I think (although I couldn't produce scientific data to support this) that's there is a large lag time between cause and effect.  So, even if the whole world decides to be very good and ends CO2 production over night it would be many years before we saw any change. Something which give anyone not wanting to change a very convenient cop-out. How we can overcome this I've no idea.

Residence time in the atmosphere for CO2 from about 40 studies is estimated to be 8 years. That means every single atmospheric molecule of CO2 from whatever source is sequestered by the soil, plants, animals, sediment, rocks, oceans by the natural Carbon cycle that has existed for aeons.

I have a brachiopod from Timley Knott near Coniston that is 450 million years old. The nacreous shell is still present, up to 20 times present concentrations of CO2 prevailed then.

DC

Would those who dispute the science really do nothing?

Go on...today you need to make the decision...the fate of the world (may) depend on it.

Would you really bet against the scientific consensus and accept the consequences? Would you take the responsibility for an avoidable disaster?

If you win the bet you get to keep a hydrocarbon-based economy...yippeee, and if you lose...

If we do make the changes we get cleaner air and a stimulus to developing technology etc etc as a bonus

Why do sceptics continue to post on this thread, which is (or should be) about positive changes we can make? Why don't they start another thread?

Because nobody is listening...we did listen, we delayed, we were wrong

If I'd voted Green I might have made a difference but I didn't...Mea culpa

Time to get real

Look, you obviously have some intelligence so stop being a dickhead about it. No-one's suggesting that CO2 levels weren't lower in the past, or that ice levels don't fluctuate. The point is that CO2 has a direct positive effect on climate, we are increasing CO2 and therefore warming the climate, and sudden changes in climate are usually catastrophic for whatever life happens to exist on Earth at that time.

Sorry, should've said "CO2 levels weren't higher in the past"

That's extremely misleading - https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-residence-time.htm

So, you're saying all the excess CO2 in the atmosphere could be stripped out it eight years. Somehow I doubt that.

Analytical article from Roger Andrews: http://euanmearns.com/the-residence-time-of-co2-in-the-atmosphere-is-33-yea...

Check figure 1.

DC

Did you read the link I posted?

The resident time of an individual CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is only one part of the picture, the time it takes for the excess of CO2 in the atmosphere to reduce is the relevant number and that's more like centuries.

A molecule of CO2 might only live in the atmosphere for a few years before being absorbed by the ocean say, but it's not a one way street, the CO2 absorbed by the ocean is (almost) balanced by the CO2 which is released from the ocean back into the atmosphere.  

To quote the from your link (which quotes from mine) -

“However, when they (the CO2 molecules) leave the atmosphere, they’re simply swapping places with carbon dioxide in the ocean. The final amount of extra CO2 that remains in the atmosphere stays there on a time scale of centuries.” 

Your link then says "I’ve been trying to make sense of this statement but haven’t been having much success. Maybe someone can make sense of it for me."

I'm not sure which part of the explanation they are having difficulty with but the concept seems pretty straight forward to me. 

Don't bother... He's just trolling whenever this topic comes up. Made worse by his pseudoscientifically sounding posts, just like any of the more literate Covid deniers (the very worst sort)!

Mr. Cumberland, why don't you just go spam elsewhere?

Is glacial retreat really the most shocking part? For me it's the thickness reductions of the glaciers. The volume of ice loss by a glacier becoming for example 10m thinner all over, is huge. And they're losing a lot more than 10m of thickness. Have a look at the Mer de Glace steps for a well known example. I think numbers demonstrating glacial retreat are not showing even half of the true story. 

Yes, absolutely...I'm aware - it's just that the visual impact of that particular glacial retreat, with the photo from 1990 nailing the position the glacial snout at that time, is so clear.

The actual volumes of ice lost in loss of depth and width are in a real sense more important.