Hacker News new | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Interesting caption to one of the photos regarding how the temperature of the environment has changed:

>Axel Lindahl’s picture of Engabreen from 1889 shows the foot of the glacier, where there was only ice, glacial gravel, water and bare mountainsides in a seemingly cold and hostile landscape. Now, more than 120 years later, the valley has become far more fertile. Birch forest, shore meadows, willow thickets and marshland have established themselves, while the glacier arm has retreated far back up the mountainside.




I don't know about the forest being caused by climate as much as just technology. In US in New England we see the exact same thing in old pictures and new pictures.http://serc.carleton.edu/vignettes/collection/24682.html

"Imagine a time machine that could take you back 150 years. Open the door and look out at the slopes of Vermont, the Green Mountain State. In 1850, the slopes would be anything but green. Most would be barren, stripped of their trees, and trampled by grazing sheep."


Changes in landscape and colonization by various plants as glaciers retreat is a very, very well-documented process. The vegetation changes in the picture shown are unambiguously due to the retreat of the glacier.

Global changes aside, it takes awhile to form soils that will support plant life. Near the foot of a retreating glacier, you'll always have till and moraines. If they've been recently exposed, they'll always be bare. It takes a few decades for forests, etc to get established.


http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/scandinavia/xnorway.html

Deforestation was happening in the 1600s and 1700s and required the stopping of many saw mills.

I just say this because humanity really did horrible environmental things throughout our history. For example the ceders of Lebanon being completly cut down by 800 BC and the deforestation of Israel during the crusades which never came back.


That's all very true, but for that particular picture, the lack of vegetation is because the area was covered by ice only a few years before. Note the lack of soil in the older photo. There's only rocks and silt.


Yes, agreed. I found more images that capture the changing climate in action: http://climate.nasa.gov/state_of_flux#Qori-Kalis-930px-80-v2...




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: