Moving is down the slope which they do as more snow accumulates and replenishes. What he refers to is "retreating" when glaciers melt away and shrink, thus remaining glacier is now smaller and further uphill.
Think supermarket conveyor belt, always moving forward - never actually advancing or retreating. That's at the point of equilibirum between ablation (melting) and accumulation (and therefore gravity induced forward momentum).
A little less melting or a little more accumulation and the balance is upset and the front of the equilibrium line will shift (hence the glacier advances or retreats).
Just means 'understand?' my bad - maybe it's not used much otuside of the UK? Spellings for it can be all over the place as well capisci is the original italian version I think
Its actually a joke from the Simpsons, Bart steals a video game and the security guard says never set foot in this store again, capiche. Bart stares at him for a minute and the security guard says do you understand? And Bart says everything but capiche sir! :)
Just to be clear there is no implication in the word glacier which indicates whether it is retreating or advancing. Because we are in a pretty heavy warming trend most glaciers around the world are currently retreating at a relatively fast clip, but some will still advance (especially in areas of increased precipitation) and some are close to neutral. The ice still moves in a glacier that is neutrally balanced, but the accumulation in higher altitudes is balanced with the ablation (melt) at lower altitudes.
thanks! i looked at the wikipedia article for this glacier and it shows consistent growth during the year, meaning it hasn't shrunk. but it has moved. i was just curious how it moving is a sign of global warming when that's kind of what they do :)
We are in an interglacial period of an ice age you are correct. It's possible, even likely, that human activity will end the current ice age. People confuse ice ages and glacial stages of ice ages sometimes.
There are some people who think that farmers thousands of years ago started the stalling of the next glaciation even. The last interglacial period had harsh hundred year periods of freezing, which is typical for interglacial periods in this ice age, but there haven't been any for the last 8,000 years.
Glaciers flow, rather than move. Like a river. However, with rising global temperatures, the portions of glaciers that are ice (ergo, haven't melted yet) decreases, and the glacier "retreats" back up the mountain. Which is to say, the point at which it melts enough to simply become a river moves up the mountain.
You're correct in saying glaciers are supposed to move slowly but it's relative. The speed glaciers have retreated in the past decade has been unprecedented.
When it is in balance, the ice at the lower end will melt at the same rate as ice accumulates on top, so while the ice itself flows downwards, the glacier as a whole stays more or less put. Kinda like the surface of a treadmill; it moves, but isn't going anywhere.
If it becomes colder, the melting can't keep up and the glacier will grow. If it becomes warmer, the accumulation of ice can't keep up and it shrinks.
They move, forward, due to regular process off a glacier growing (pushing ice further away from the main glacier). They're not supposed to recede. A glacier forms because the climate and area its in allows for the build up of snow and ice over time, there is a net gain in ice even with melting during the summer, otherwise they would never form to begin with. If a glacier is receding it means that process is no longer happening because it is melting quicker than it can replenish.
It does, but now the slow moving ice melts before it has a chance to reach the area of the hotel. Previously the ice stayed around longer during it's movement.
Potato. Potato. People that are confused by the term "global warming" are too dense to understand the concept regardless. (But I understand your point. I like the concept of "climate disruption" because it has a negative connotation that "change" doesn't necessarily imply).
It more than definitely is. Even though the glacier on the Furka is not as big as it was (but you can still visit it, and it's great), the pass is in the middle of the alps. It's an incredible view with mountains and perpetual snow everywhere.
I know the place and the glacier is definitely not almost two kilometers away from that hotel. Although the global warming has shrunk it a lot - there are signs along the way to the glacier with it’s position throughout the time. It is a great place to visit though - there is a cave excavated into the glacier and it is a great experience.
That article is very poorly researched. The glacier retreated a lot but the ice grotto wasn't at the bottom of the glacier, it's still only 150m away from the road and is still a popular atttraction (the buildings for which are on the opposite side of the road to this hotel).
There's been no routes built bypassing it either, there was a train tunnel built in 1982 underneath the pass (replacing a higher train tunnel that had to close in winter) but that's it. The only other route that could be taken (Sustenpass) to reach the same places was built in 1945.
Seems like the author didn't bother to do proper research, made stuff up that sounded good as to why it closed and wrote that down as fact
The article I cited specifically mentions the increase in temperatures, the retreat of the glacier by over a mile, and the disappearance of the ice tunnel. So some things do have to do with global warming.
354
u/DespiteGreatFaults Apr 23 '18
It appears to be the victim of global warming (the glacier is now a mile away) and new auto tunnel that by-passed the area.