
Glaciers are retreating. Millions rely on their water - ra7
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/01/15/climate/melting-glaciers-globally.html
======
baxtr
Man, it is frightening to see how fast things are changing. I wonder if and
how through things like that whole ecosystems will collapse sooner or later
leading, amongst other things, to mass-migration

Side note: very nice and engaging format, just right: playful but not too
fancy

~~~
zepearl
"But it is only on the brink that people find the will to change. Only at the
precipice do we evolve."

Quote from the movie/film "The day the earth stood still". (don't know if it's
copied from the older film or some book etc...)

I did quite like that film (it was "ok", kind of advanced-mediocre) - at a
certain point I was reaaaally hoping that somebody would state something like
that, and a few minutes/seconds later they did => it made me incredibly happy
:)

------
akshayB
This is not just happening in Central Asia but a global phenomenon. I have
visited Athabasca Glacier part of the Columbia Icefields after long time and
you can see retreat which is happening at an alarming rate.

~~~
JimboOmega
I visited that very glacier with my father. The historic extent of the glacier
is clearly marked. That evening he still insisted global warming was made up
for a political agenda, simply natural variation, etc. There really isn't much
you can do to convince some people.

Also FWIW, I think the bigger concern in Central Asia is water security. I
don't think Canadians will be in as difficult a position as those in Central
Asia without them.

~~~
folkrav
"Canada has 7% of the world's renewable fresh water", but the 85% of the
population that lives close to the south border doesn't have access to this
water as it mostly flows northwards towards the Arctic Ocean. [1] The rest is
underground, glacier water or sitting in lakes.

It isn't as bad as Central Asia as far as I know, but it's still not great.

[1] [https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-
change/services...](https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-
change/services/water-overview/frequently-asked-questions.html)

------
phkahler
They've been retreating for 15,000 years or more. At what point do we say
"this is where they should stop"? The high water mark for inter-glacial sea
level is quite a bit higher that it is now:

[https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/climate-change/changing-
ice...](https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/climate-change/changing-ice/high-
water-mark)

~~~
thinkcontext
Speed matters. It makes a big difference if a glacier field providing a large
chunk of water for your city disappears over the course of 50 years or 500
years.

~~~
ThomPete
50 years is still plenty of time to deal with that especially in todays
society.

~~~
SketchySeaBeast
You're far more optimistic than I. What changes have humans made in the last 5
years that indicate we're doing to make a massive turn around? When IS it time
to panic?

~~~
ThomPete
I wish someone would tell me exactly what it is I should be worried about.

I get that there will be consequences to climate change that's how it's always
been, but nature throws that at us all the time and have always been doing
that. If anything we've just become better and better at dealing with it.

So I wish someone could provide anything other than speculation here.

~~~
dwaltrip
Since the dawn of civilization, what equivalent event has nature thrown at us?

Also, it's important to be clear. We are throwing this one at ourselves.

~~~
ThomPete
Where do you want me to start.

Earthquakes, tsunamis, animals, forest fires, bad crops, flooding, undrinkable
water, tornados, storms I could go on.

It's really quite fascinating just how many people which I assume are normally
rational thinking beings have decided to throw out any sense of critical
thinking when it comes to nature and climate.

It's like Scientology. Lots of talk about science and then when you dig into
it the actual science does not lead you to conclude what is claimed.

~~~
UnFleshedOne
Those are all rather localized and minor events that still can and do
devastate whole countries for a long time. Now take them all (except
earthquakes, maybe add social issues like war) and start gradually increasing
frequency. Do you expect there to be a breaking point? What do you expect to
happen when least lucky countries collapse and add refugee pressure on
neighbors. Is there a threshold where dominoes start to fall?

~~~
Jach
This might be the point of disagreement... Let's agree to assume that many
disasters, natural and social, have befallen humanity over its existence, and
that some of them are going to increase in frequency proportional with the
increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Can we also agree that humanity has gotten
_dramatically_ better at mitigating the negative impacts of various disasters,
and _especially_ over the time frame of people who are currently alive?

If we're good on both of those, then I think the disagreement is whether we'll
continue to dramatically improve or not. In other words, if we can drive the
total negative cost (premature deaths, property damage, civil unrest, etc.) of
certain disasters towards 0 by improving our response/mitigation capability,
then it won't really matter if they come at an increased rate, the additional
impact is a rounding error. If you agree with this, or see how one could agree
with it, then maybe you can see why it's frustrating to hear people freaking
out about climate change being an existential threat (it can be, given Venus,
but that planet had no humans opposing it) which will doom our planet _unless_
and only unless global CO2 is reduced (at some cost, perhaps partly of our
species' ability to improve our mitigations fast enough).

------
mapt
Adapting to this optimally is probably going to involve waves of dam
construction; Not for hydroelectric specifically (though China sees Tibetan
hydro as a huge opportunity), but just to ensure that there's something left
of the monsoon in the dry season.

Adapting to this through an uncoordinated approach of sociological gradient
descent is just going to see tons and tons of wells being dug, in a race for
the deeper acquifer.

~~~
njarboe
California might have a similar problem if the Sierra precipitation comes more
as rain than snowpack in the future. One possible solution is to re-inject
water into aquifers in high precip years and then pump it out during droughts.
If it can be done politically (the tech already exists) then this is even
better than dams for water storage as evaporation doesn't happen.

Currently in California people can pump as much water as they can from wells
with no restriction. Some changes in the works, but until the person who pumps
it in gets to pump it out or sell it, this idea will not work.

------
ThomPete
Luckily we are much better equipped to deal with any effect of change in
climate today than we used to be when we also had even warmer climate.

In fact that's one of the things we've been really good at learning to deal
with. Natures tendency to throw us all sorts of unexpected events.

~~~
snowwrestler
The migration of a few thousand people from Central America to the U.S. border
was treated like a national crisis last year.

Imagine what the social and political reaction is going to be when millions
flee the equatorial regions due to heat and sea level rise.

~~~
nostrademons
To be fair, the migration of a few thousand people was treated like a national
crisis because it behooves both the people in power and the news media for the
world to perpetually be in a state of crisis.

~~~
BLKNSLVR
Seemingly with the exception of if it's a position supported by science.

:)

