
Study tracks dramatic retreat of Canadian glaciers - yawz
http://www.dailycamera.com/science_environment/ci_32408521/cu-boulder-led-study-tracks-dramatic-retreat-canadian
======
abakker
It's so cool to see your old classmates published! It's also sad to see the
conclusions be so dire.

It always amazes me that in the triumvirate of Environment, Politics, and
Economics, it is so easy to discuss optimization of Political Economy, and so
difficult to discuss Environmental Politics or Environmental Economics. I've
come to the conclusion that the mental models in Economics and Politics both
abstract further from the true underlying processes and make it easier to
reason (and attempt to optimize for) the political economy models. Sadly, the
environment resists simplified mental models because scientists actually
understand the complexity, while political scientists and economists have a
hard time developing policies, pricing structures, and cost models that can
really handle the nuance of the environment as it actually exists.

------
grawprog
I've seen the glaciers at Garibaldi first hand. Even now they're still awesome
to look at. But before we went go there we took a look at some air photos from
over the years and some of the first pictures ever taken of it. The difference
was dramatic and fairly shocking. The lake itself was about half the size
originally and even in the photos from 50-60 years ago the difference was
pretty dramatic. The glacier was still twice the size as when I went and
covered the whole side of the mountain down to the lake and pretty much the
entire opposite side of the shore.

By the time I ended up going there the glacier was about half way up the side
of the mountain, the opposite shore was mostly free of ice and had to be about
half as wide. It was sad to see but i'm glad I got to see at least what I did.

Also, glacial lakes are fucking cool, Garibaldi lake is colour of ice blue
koolaid.

------
soared
What are the hypothetical options to stop/slow/reverse global warming?
Assuming we could overcome any setback, what would we as a species have to
accomplish and when?

~~~
vkou
There are a number of strategies, each of which has pros and cons.

1\. Hard switch away from fossil fuels for base energy generation. The only
option for this is nuclear. Pros: This could reduce our emissions by ~60%.
Cons: Everyone hates nuclear.

2\. Transition to a steady state economy. Drastically reduce our net
consumption of energy and raw resources, by taxing energy, resource
extraction, or waste, while keeping the same mix of energy generation. Pros:
You can reduce emissions by... As much as you want, with this. Cons: Everyone
is banking on unlimited exponential growth, and this would cause an economic
collapse/depression.

3\. Invest hundreds of millions of people, and trillions of dollars into
carbon sequestration. Pros: If we do enough of this, we can drive emissions
negative. Cons: You can't do this cheaply. So, you get all the cons of #2.
Also, you have to stop using fossil fuels, because there's no point to digging
up and burning coal, at the same time that you're growing, and burying trees.

4\. Do next to nothing, and let our children deal with the fallout. Pros: It's
easy, and we're already doing it. Cons: Your grandchildren will inherit an
ecological disaster.

There's no winning move.

~~~
tick_tock_tick
For number 3 we already have very cheap solutions to carbon sequestration by
artificially triggering algae blooms. The real questions is what kind of
unintended consequences will come after.

~~~
pfisch
I mean I think at this point it isn't unreasonable to say it's over for the
ocean.

Either we start sequestering on a massive scale or the ocean is going to turn
into a pool of acid anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if it was already too late
right now and all life in the ocean is just currently in a slow death spiral
because of what we have already done.

