Wind back to 2004; summer up to the Bertol hut from Arolla - nice climb up across crunchy neve for the last 5km - boots and axe, no crampons needed. Bit of an issue with a slough avalanche and thunder storm but other than that, a good day out.
Fastwind forward to last week. Leave Arolla at 10am and arrive at top of Plan Bertol with kids (10 and 12) to a very different scene. What was a good snow slope is now heaps of unstable, jagged rock. The path is unclear; the snow cover about 1/10 of what it was in 2004. Ok ascend until a pile of rocks collapses beneath me, leaving me with a gushing hole in one arm, and two heavily bleeding slashes on my scalp. Snow held to all the cuts stems the bleeding and quells the kids' justifiable concerns. Only 45 mins up to the hut, with the main time being belaying the kids up the front ladders. Great support from the guardians and a friend of a friend UIAGM guide (thanks Ivan) - Steristrips really do the job and close the big wound on my forehead. Great food but some anxiety since head wounds always a bit unpredictable and it was a big bang against a very pointy rock. Feel a stupid for the accident, first incident in years. Bit of a restless night, with terrible snoring from the guy next to me - usual hut stuff. Bad protocol from one guy, who sets alarm for 4am but gets up at 5am.
Breakfast fairly late since waiting for the snow to catch the sun and make the kids' descent a little safer; they prove confident in descending, learning quickly what a good axe placement looks and sounds like. Surprised at the number of people coming up the steep sections of hard snow (with run-outs onto rocks) with crampons and ski poles - they have axes but these are on their packs. One trip and they would be away, with no means of arresting.
Get down rather slowly, and then the moment we get to mixed ground, away go the rocks again, and my partner now bangs her head really hard. Blood everywhere, but luckily the nearest party includes a nurse - who correctly recommends that sutures are needed. For a 4mm open slash, I agree. Steristrips won't hold so climbing tape does a more industrial job of holding it all together.
10pm sees us in Sion hospital with a doctor testing my reflexes and stitching up my partner.
But this tale of long-gone snowfields and new, unstable slopes seems to be the story throughout the Alps. All the North faces I knew as stable and ice-bound now seem to be piles of rubble and rotten slack.
Any other experiences?
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
@valais2, complex I think and those who even have 1/2 an idea can't agree.
De-glaciation is a cycle.
Solar radiation is a factor.
Personally I think humans are contributing. How much, how fast? No idea.
But I think the wrong questions are being asked and debated.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
@valais2, someone will be along shortly to tell you it's got nothing to do with us. Glaciers come, glaciers go. C'est la vie.
I have been visiting Saas-Fee for 25 plus years, and the reduction in the size of the glaciers is massive. In the late 80's the glacier tongue reached the glacier lake above the village, in a wall several metres high. Now it is 300-400 metres up the valley, and much thinner. Similarly when standing at the Langfluh station you could not see the Felskinn station because of the bulk of the glacier, but now you look way down onto the glacier and can easily see across the valley. The black runs below Camel have also disappeared due to the retreat of the glacier.
Technically we are still in an Ice Age (which peaked 10,000 years ago), so retreating glaciers are to be expected, however the speed of the retreat is unexpected.
As for whether that caused at least in part by burning of fossil fuels, it seems to me that the ideologically or economically motivated dominate the argument to the contrary.
Personally I don't think you can 'ignore' human interference in Climate Change (which I always favour over Global Warming), however, I also agree that we are experiencing the end of the aforementioned Ice Age... Just a bit quicker than expected...
If anyone is really interested in the subject then they could do worse than have a look at these site (Chasing Ice and Extreme Ice Survey) and take a look at some of the time lapse videos shown as well...
They also managed, as part of the Chasing Ice movie, to capture one of the largest largest glacier calving event ever seen... To say it is truly enormous, is an understatement... The time lapse at 3.40min is incredible
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Walk up the steps from the Mer de Glace to Montenvers. They have plaques on the way up showing the glacier level in different years. It's scary just how far it has fallen (within another decade I suspect the glacier snout will have retreated above the steps). I estimate the level to be around 50m lower than the first time I skied the Vallee Blanche. Also when I was last out climbing in the Andes there were obvious scar/tide marks around all the glaciers where the fall in level simply hasn't had time to weather. Looks similar to a low reservoir.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Yes, it is true that glaciers have effectively been retreating since it snowed for less than half the year, more than half is technically an ice age. But, it is the rate of change that has undoubtedly sped up - Hiking up the Glacier du Trient a few weeks ago to Fenetre d'Arpette there you pass a graph showing the rate of retreat of the glacier there - it is a simple measurement and makes no emotional statements, just figures. It clearly shows in the last 50 years the shockingly massive retreat of the glacier. It's retreated over 1km in a very, very short amount of time.
Even last week we walked past a dead glacier, just the last few small patches of ice, some of it hidden below the rubble that used to be inside the glacier - and the view down to the north side was equally aw-inspiring being that you could clearly see the land scars which the glacier (now much thinner) had caused when it went scraping along it, and the now disconnected side glaciers which only a few years ago were connected to the main glacial flow.
It is undeniable that our climate is most definitly getting warmer (and in my opinion - and not wanting a fight) human activity has massively contributed to the speed of change, yes Earths climate has cooled and warmed in all history, but previously that change has been slow and taken many hundreds (if not thousands) of years - change has sped up - that is the major concern for me, the rate at which this change is occuring.
Even geological science tells us during the peak of the last ice age the sea level was more than 100 meters lower than today and that's because all the water was frozen in the glaciers.
Over looking some view points me and Mr. Mountain Addiction often say, we should come back here in 10 years with this photo and see what has changed.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
The Alpine glaciers have not followed a simple recession since the end of the full-on ice age (12,000-odd years ago). They have retreated and advanced many times. For example, remains of trees that grew in Roman times are emerging from receding glaciers today.
Only half the life of the planet ago, it was a hell of a lot hotter
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Mosha Marc wrote:
It all depends on you timeframe.
Only half the life of the planet ago, it was a hell of a lot hotter
But the make up of the atmosphere was completely different then too - not least because there was more volcanic activity, so even though there may have been more CO2 in the atmosphere, the atmount of Sulphur (a cooling gas) released by volcanos was a lot higher too.
So, it's a very complex thing and one which really needs a lot more study that a simple look at the temperature gauge past and present.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
My point(s) would be that whether or not climate change (which it does all the time anyway) is anthropogenic, who cares. But...
* why as a race are we depleting finite reserves of rather useful minerals
* not worrying enough about increasing oceanic carbonification
* razing rain forests
* etc.
As a species we rose to (in some terms) planetary dominance in a certain set of conditions and it's not at all clear that we will comfortably adapt to a different set...whether or not we're doing it to ourselves is somewhat moot. We need to understand what is really happening, indifferently to political, invested or economic motivations, whether we can do anything to modify it and ultimately what we'll need to do as a species to continue to survive.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
If you look at the webcam of Tignes glacier http://www.tignes.net/en/skiing-in-tignes/webcams-290.html#Webcam_HD_Grande_Motte_-_3100_m_- you see that there is very little skiable at the moment, early September (it is closed until October). I first summer skied there in 1989 and we skied on areas which are now rock. A really scary thing is that in summer 2005 I went into the ice grotto that was carved into the glacier at the bottom of the glacier T bar. That is now bare rock so in 10 years the glacier has gone from over 2m to nothing at that point. The Leise run looks all crevasses now and I wonder how much monger there will be summer skiing in Tignes. It used to advertise 365 days of skiing - changed times now.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
AlpineAddict wrote:
They also managed, as part of the Chasing Ice movie, to capture one of the largest largest glacier calving event ever seen... To say it is truly enormous, is an understatement... The time lapse at 3.40min is incredible
That is amazing. The power of it brings home just how the ancient glaciers eroded landscapes.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
Quote:
* why as a race are we depleting finite reserves of rather useful minerals
* not worrying enough about increasing oceanic carbonification
* razing rain forests
+1
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Quote:
why as a race are we depleting finite reserves of rather useful minerals
Because if we didn't deplete them, they wouldn't be useful.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I'm not a scientist and have no axe to grind on the CC debate but I would have thought that the heating or cooling of a large body, such as a glacier, would involve an exponential function in someway.
Do we have a scientist who could help explain the mechanics/science?
I think in such a complex chaotic system as the earths climate we have absolutely no idea what really goes on. People like to think that they have answers, but in realty its all just guess work. I find it quite amazing how we struggle to predict weather for 4 days time (even less for the mountains) yet seem to be able to predict the state of the climate to within a degree in a 100 years time. The future cannot be predicted with any real degree of accuracy.
I would also love to know how they measure the height of the worlds oceans to within a few mm, and how co2 in the atmosphere acts like a one way valve i.e. letting radiation into the earths atmosphere uninterrupted, yet it holds it back when it leaves. In my mind the increase co2 levels in the atmosphere would reflect the incoming radiation as much as it "holds back" the out going radiation and would just cancel out any heating effect, after all global warming is co2 just momentarily reflecting radiation in a random direction other than up and away from the earth…..if anyone knows please do tell me!
I have about as much idea as the next person as to what cycle or point the glaciers are at or if that have retreated before, my guess is yes. The link below is a newspaper from the 1920's
@Steilhang, that makes more sense than the general statement. Though one could argue that the most valuable usage is that that people are prepared to pay the most for (which sort of follows by definition). However, if I ruled the world there would be more nuclear power and less need to burn oil (certainly for the production of electricity).
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Quote:
I would also love to know how they measure the height of the worlds oceans to within a few mm
with Radar Altimeters on satellites (cross calibrated by several other instruments, to factor out refraction etc.)
After all it is free
After all it is free
laundryman wrote:
@Steilhang, that makes more sense than the general statement. Though one could argue that the most valuable usage is that that people are prepared to pay the most for (which sort of follows by definition). However, if I ruled the world there would be more nuclear power and less need to burn oil (certainly for the production of electricity).
Depending on the generation of Nuclear you are talking about I would agree, but we should not discard the potential from renewables. According to this Fraunhofer report Germany produced 34% of it electricity from Solar, Wind, Water and Biomass in the first half of 2015.
Quote:
In Summe produzierten die Erneuerbaren Energiequellen Solar, Wind, Wasser und Biomasse im ersten
Halbjahr 2015 ca. 94,3 TWh. Das sind ca. 11,4 TWh bzw. 13,8% mehr als im ersten Halbjahr 2014. Sie erreichten
einen Anteil von ca. 34% an der öffentlichen Nettostromerzeugung.
Quite a respectable result.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Quote:
with Radar Altimeters on satellites (cross calibrated by several other instruments, to factor out refraction etc.)
This is from wikipedia
Sea level rise has been estimated to be on average between +2.6 mm and +2.9 mm per year ± 0.4 mm since 1993. Additionally, sea level rise has accelerated in recent years.[2] For the period between 1870 and 2004, global average sea levels are estimated to have risen a total of 195 mm, and 1.7 mm ± 0.3 mm per year, with a significant acceleration of sea-level rise of 0.013 ± 0.006 mm per year per year.
72% of the world is ocean, its effected by gravitational forces, the sun, and who knows what else, all on a spinning lump of rock suspend in space travelling at 1180km per hour.
I just really struggle to believe that those measurements in mm mean anything at all.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Quote:
I find it quite amazing how we struggle to predict weather for 4 days time (even less for the mountains) yet seem to be able to predict the state of the climate to within a degree in a 100 years time.
In many respects the longer term climate 'forecasts' are actually easier (note I'm not saying that automatically makes them more correct!). Once again the two things - climate and weather - are simply not comparable. Weather fluctuates enormously on a daily basis, especially in the maritime climates of places like the UK. This makes daily forecasts incredibly difficult to do. Climate on the other hand averages out all those daily fluctuations and is more concerned with trends. But climate also fluctuates enormously, just over a longer period; from year to year and decade to decade. This allows the naysayers to focus on just a particular period. For example the arctic sea ice coverage over the last 8 years has been trending up not down. Does this mean the planet is cooling again? No. Look at the last thirty years and the trend is steadily decreasing. All we can do observe the trends and make predictions based on them. And currently those predictions are not good.
@letelemarker also asked how greenhouse gases can let heat in but not out. I'm no expert on this but let me attempt an explanation I believe what happens is all down to relative heat.
Quote:
Hot objects give off high energy, short wavelength photons; cooler objects emit lower energy, longer wavelength photons.
The sun is hot (duh!) and our atmosphere is largely transparent to its mostly short wavelength radiation (visible light). So much of its radiation reaches the Earth's surface and we heat up, but, obviously, no where near as hot as the sun. So the heat radiated from the Earth's surface is lower energy long wavelength radiation (infra red). Our atmosphere is absolutely not transparent to this typically infra red radiation and greenhouse gases are particularly good at absorbing this longer wavelength radiation. So we end up absorbing more heat than we radiate. Please note that this is a double edged blade it is both dangerous for us and essential to our survival, without it the Earth's average surface temperature would (I think) be closer to -20C (Earth's 'black body temperature') than its current 14C (those are very rough values pulled from memory but you get the idea).
Well they do if 2.9mm per year on average is 29cm in a century. The fact that 2.9mm is significantly smaller than the amount the sea goes up and down the beach twice daily doesn't make it insignificant.
We can measure the exact centre of mass of the Earth too to iirc within about 20cm. Actually by one of those instruments used in cross-calibrating the radar.
And the sea is basically the biggest heatsink on the planet, and the thermal energy stored within it is exactly what fuels the weather.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
letelemarker wrote:
I just really struggle to believe that those measurements in mm mean anything at all.
I'm not sure why it should be a struggle. There are 1000s of tide gauges in operation worldwide and data going back to the early 18th century. Accurate tidal predictions have considerable economic importance.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Madmountainman, thanks for the link
I understand that climate and weather are two separate things, my point was more that if we can't get a regional few days ahead forecast correct, what makes us think we are able to to work out a "trend" over the next 50-100 years.
You can look at past data, but its just that past, it has no bearing on what will happen in the future. just like when people say its been a hot summer this means we will get a cold winter.
I just don't see how you can take one element from a complex and chaotic system with a mind blowing amount of variables and treat it like a part of a linear system i.e.. increase this and as a direct result this happens. That just cannot be the case with regards to the earths climate and after all global warming is nothing more than a theory..but then so is gravity
Just to be clear I have no agenda on global warming or anything like that, I was pretty concerned about it for a while I have since changed my mind!
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Quote:
I'm not sure why it should be a struggle. There are 1000s of tide gauges in operation worldwide and data going back to the early 18th century. Accurate tidal predictions have considerable economic importance.
to the mm?? tides also vary on a daily basis some are higher, they are never the same exact height each day.
Its just the shear size of the ocean and the fact that we have a a few readings from a few places over the planet taken over a short space of time that I doubt are accurate to the mm.
Satellite data didn't start until 1992
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Quote:
You can look at past data, but its just that past, it has no bearing on what will happen in the future. just like when people say its been a hot summer this means we will get a cold winter.
Past climate absolutely does have a bearing on the future. As in everything, understanding the history helps predict the future. Denying that is like saying just because water turns to ice at 0C yesterday doesn't mean it will tomorrow. Of course past data has bearing. And of course the planet's temperature has increased and decreased many times in our past history but NEVER as fast as it is doing now.
Will it continue to do so? No one can say for certain. Have we caused it? Maybe. More likely we've accelerated an already warming trend. Does the fact that arctic sea ice is steadily decreasing and average sea temperatures are increasing mean it they will continue to do so? Unless something occurs to create an abrupt change in the trend then it is likely. When was the last abrupt change in the trend? The industrial revolution which coincided with an abrupt increase in the warming trend. Just coincidence? Maybe but there are just too many such coincidences to ignore. So it seems likely that we will only see an abrupt change to decreasing temperatures if we engineer it.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
So if I take all of the lottery numbers from the first draw, work out the trends, that will give me the correct result for the next up coming draw? i think not. Admittedly the lottery is a random thing, and the climate operates within rules, but we don't understand all off the rules, so unless each part is understood any attempt to make a prediction is pure and simple guess work.
Its not like saying that water turns to ice at 0 today it might not tomorrow..that has been proven consistently over time
Im just saying you should question and think about what is being said, people have agendas and will see thing how they want to see them and lot of the "facts" presented are assumptions. For example the fact that the climate has never warmed at this current level before is an assumption
Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and the amount of emitted radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. energy in = energy out.
The paragraph above is an assumption, not a fact that has been proven over time.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
As you say the lottery is random climate is not. And those rules can only be worked out by studying the past history... that's how science works.
Yes we don't know all the rules but we are constantly learning more so our predictions get better. We don't fully understand everything in quantum mechanics but we understand enough to predict behaviour sufficiently well to construct electronic chips that allow pretty much all our current technology. You can't simply write off all our historic climate data as irrelevant simply because we don't understand all the rules. I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. With that approach we could never improve our understanding of nature because everything we already know is in the past and therefore irrelevant.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
MadMountainMan wrote:
And of course the planet's temperature has increased and decreased many times in our past history but NEVER as fast as it is doing now.
I think that is quite simply wrong (according to the best available evidence). The Younger Dryas period was a horrific cold spell a mere 12,000 years ago. God help us if there is a similar episode. Its onset and ending were very abrupt.
Quote:
The change to glacial conditions at the onset of the younger Dryas in the higher latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere between 12,900–11,500 BP in calendar years has been argued to have been quite abrupt.[12] in sharp contrast to the warming of the preceding Older Dryas interstadial. It has been inferred that its end occurred over a period of a decade or so,[13] but the onset may have been faster.[14] Thermally fractionated nitrogen and argon isotope data from Greenland ice core GISP2 indicate that the summit of Greenland was approximately 15 °C (27 °F) colder during the Younger Dryas[13] than today. In the UK, coleopteran (beetle) fossil evidence suggests that mean annual temperature dropped to −5 °C (23 °F),[15] and periglacial conditions prevailed in lowland areas, while icefields and glaciers formed in upland areas.[16] Nothing of the size, extent, or rapidity of this period of abrupt climate change has been experienced since its end.[12]
You are right past data has its place, but it quite simply cannot be used to predict future occurrences. In the case of temperature records for example how do you know all of the variables behind the data? you don't or can't..as the person analysing the core sample or whatever wasn't there. factors like vegetation density, the strength of the sun, how close the earth was to the sun at that point, amongst other things that I have no idea about all would have played a role in that result.
You don't have to take my word for it, you just need to look at the current ipcc climate models, all of which are pretty much wrong
Science isn't only worked not on historic occurrences either, its also done by analysing current data and working out why the results occurred in that way.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
@laundryman, I didn't know about that one, I admit.
@letelemarker, I'm not quite sure how you can claim all IPCC climate models are wrong without yourself knowing the future. And even if they are should we just abandon trying to produce better models because it's too hard? Should we just give up trying to understand what is happening to our climate? Because something is most certainly happening to it.
We are warming and that warming is already having effects, there are very very few scientist who would disagree with that now. How much, how fast and who is responsible might be open to debate but I personally side with the vast majority of scientist who believe we are going to see a lot more warming before we see cooling. And figuring out how to deal with that should, I think, be our priority.
Climate models have been around since the 1960's so if you compare the models with collected data, they and incorrect and have over estimated the warming trend. Its not a case of looking into the future.
If you want to believe that we are heading for impending doom, its your choice. Im just saying you shouldn't just listen to what people in the media tell you. you should make up your own mind
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
MadMountainMan wrote:
I'm not quite sure how you can claim all IPCC climate models are wrong without yourself knowing the future. And even if they are should we just abandon trying to produce better models because it's too hard? Should we just give up trying to understand what is happening to our climate? Because something is most certainly happening to it.
We are warming and that warming is already having effects, there are very very few scientist who would disagree with that now. How much, how fast and who is responsible might be open to debate but I personally side with the vast majority of scientist who believe we are going to see a lot more warming before we see cooling. And figuring out how to deal with that should, I think, be our priority.
If you take the predictions from the models and plot them against the reality so far, they are most certainly have not predicted the near future, to say the least. I doubt that no one is arguing against working on better models, but I would argue against making billion dollar economic decisions based on predictions that are so far been poor.
After all it is free
After all it is free
MadMountainMan wrote:
Quote:
You can look at past data, but its just that past, it has no bearing on what will happen in the future. just like when people say its been a hot summer this means we will get a cold winter.
Past climate absolutely does have a bearing on the future. As in everything, understanding the history helps predict the future. Denying that is like saying just because water turns to ice at 0C yesterday doesn't mean it will tomorrow. Of course past data has bearing. And of course the planet's temperature has increased and decreased many times in our past history but NEVER as fast as it is doing now.
How did you work that one out?
Our climate data records only go back a few hundred thousand years. That sounds like an impressive number to us puny humans, but it's not even a blink on a planetary timescale!
One of the big problems in climate science is taking this past data, plugging it into VERY imperfect models, and 'trusting' the outcomes as likely to occur. The models are all very flawed as we don't really understand all that much; sure we should be working on improving them, but suggesting the results are 'true' and making decisions based on them is stupid.
It would be much better if people were just honest about this, rather than trying to pretend that we 'know' what is going on, and losing all credibility along the way. It's all educated guesswork at best.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Quote:
Satellite data didn't start until 1992
was it really that recent?
I know I made use of live NOAA satellite data for my uni lab work in 1992.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Quote:
plugging it into VERY imperfect models
That's somewhat disingenuous - the models themselves are widely reliable and have predicted many phenomena that we've seen replicated in the real world. The problems often lie in taking those predictions and using them incorrectly as justification for a partisan viewpoint.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
and that's because all the water was frozen in the glaciers.
I believe what happens is all down to relative heat.
