[jackhack]

OK, but there are a few questions first. Is this change desirable, or undesirable? What is the correct number of glaciers and are we moving toward that or away from that number? Why?

If we are expecting the world to stay the same and never change (homeostasis), then we expect what has never been before. Planetary history is one of heating-cooling cycles, occurring well before mankind existed.

[francisofascii]

It is the speed of change that is the problem. Rather than asking what is the correct number, we should ask how fast are we approaching either extreme. Historically these cycles lasted about 100,000 years, so we can safely consider that as the ideal. So if we are at 10% glacial coverage now, we ideally be at 10% in 100 years, too.

[ImPostingOnHN]

it is undesirable, because it is indicative of climate change which will negatively impact humanity

a better number of glaciers is however many would indicate climate change which positively impacts humanity, or a lack of significant climate change

philosophical stoned-speak about nothing staying the same and stuff going in cycles doesn't change the fact that this is an indicator of current and future climate bad for humanity