top | item 42224815

Where Glaciers Melt, the Rivers Run Red

79 points| Petiver | 1 year ago |nytimes.com

84 comments

order
[+] matsemann|1 year ago|reply
Just before visiting HN I read a news article about our glaciers in Norway also melting. One glacier has moved back 83 meters in a year, and the last ten years it's moved back 483 meters.

A glacier that normally melts a meter in thickness each year and gains it back during winter, has melted 4 meters.

We've lost 20 glaciers here the last decade.

It's scary.

https://www.nrk.no/klima/breforsker-sjokkert-over-hvor-mye-i...

[+] baq|1 year ago|reply
The election cycle, at least in a small part a function of a human’s expected life span btw, is way too short for governments to be incentivized to do anything about it.

It’s going to be a wild ride for our grandchildren.

[+] MrVandemar|1 year ago|reply
We won't save ourselves.

It's just not cost effective to do so.

[+] dagurp|1 year ago|reply
They are shrinking at an alarming rate here in Iceland as well. This is causing sandstorms and possibly increased volcanic activity.
[+] ponector|1 year ago|reply
It is the end of the recent ice age, those glaciers are set to melt anyway. With human contribution they melted slightly faster.
[+] advael|1 year ago|reply
Sure seems like we ought to be more aggressive about this whole anthropogenic climate collapse problem

Like maybe problems like vast swaths of the world becoming both less livable and less arable all at once is somewhat to blame for all the refugee crises?

Not to be "political" or whatever

[+] KeplerBoy|1 year ago|reply
Just wait for the refugee crises yet to come. We have seen nothing so far.
[+] isoprophlex|1 year ago|reply
https://archive.is/QO7jd

An aside:

Why bother submitting paywalled articles? Why bother upvoting paywalled articles? > 95% of readers probably don't have access.

Not being facetious, I genuinely want to know. Do people upvote without reading? Will almost everyone take the effort to throw the link into a paywall buster? Do many HN readers subscribe to paywalled sources?

[+] thom|1 year ago|reply
99% of the time the top comment is an archive link.
[+] matsemann|1 year ago|reply
FWIW it wasn't pay walled here. I just had to press "Show full article" and could read on. Perhaps it's based on geo location (I'm not their market) or how much one's read them lately?
[+] bell-cot|1 year ago|reply
For me (NYT non-subscriber, US, blocking most js), only the first 4 paragraphs are visible. That's fairly common for web sites to do (# of visible paragraphs varies, obviously). And usually shows enough to convince me that the article is worth no more of my time.
[+] oniony|1 year ago|reply
I share your annoyance. I've convinced that the sites themselves are doing this to attract subscribers.

Every time anyone complains you get the backlash of "if you want good journalism you have to pay for it", yet few can afford to subscribe to more than one or two publications and yet we have to suffer paywalled links from all of them. For me, the one UK publication I pay for is enough (and that one is, ironically, not even paywalled).

[+] latexr|1 year ago|reply
> Why bother submitting paywalled articles?

They are explicitly permitted, as long as there are workarounds.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html#:~:text=Are%20payw...

Though I wish submitters would provide the workaround (or gift link) too when submitting (I try to do so). It’s often someone else who does it. Though in fairness I guess someone may forget something is paywalled when they’re paying for it and have access.

[+] anjanb|1 year ago|reply
I subscribe to 4-5 paywalled sources. Rest, I rely on others to give me the archive links.
[+] ashoeafoot|1 year ago|reply
So upriver ph guard station with lime? and methan flaming of drones?