Global Glacier Extinction Explorer (glacierextinction.com)
159 points by guillego 20 days ago | 64 comments



davely 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

In 2004, I visited New Zealand. It was my first international trip as part of a 6 week long geology field camp. One of the coolest experiences was getting to visit the Fox Glacier and Franz Josef Glacier on the South Island.

Checking this out, I don't see the Fox Glacier or Franz Josef Glacier specifically listed in the search field, but moving the map around, I was able to find the ice fields.

I see that they both will "survive" to 2100, but I wonder in what state. Check out this time lapse video from 2013 to 2018 showing the Franz Josef Glacier's drastic retreat! [3]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Josef_Glacier

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_Glacier

[3] https://youtu.be/LUs_20kRHDw?si=k1nJB2z_kn8T--uT&t=17

rearview 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Reviewed this and it is quite impressive. The map adds much more reality to the data as opposed to regular climate maps. The one feature that I think would be awesome to add would be an interactivity layer to the bottom-right panel indicating the extinction years where you can click or hover over the warming period to view the affected glaciers on the map and their numbers.
a1371 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

I don't understand why a glacier would survive longer in the 4°C scenario than 2.5°C but this seems to suggest so.
burkaman 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

The data comes from this paper, I don't immediately see an answer to this question though: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-025-02513-9. My guess is that the climate is complicated and the planet doesn't warm evenly, so different emissions scenarios might imply different regions warm more quickly. Not all the glaciers on the site survive longer in the +4 scenario, it's only some parts of the world.
cyberax 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

More precipitation in a given area, resulting in more snow accumulating.

There was an episode of Northern Exposure where an entire frozen mammoth was exposed. Before the main character could report this amazing find to anyone to be preserved in a museum one of the locals dragged it to house and butchered it for steaks.
mbty 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Okjökull is considered extinct, yet according to this website it should survive until the 2070s at least? It also gives 2079 for 1.5°C vs. 2075 for 2.7°C (I know that the local dynamic is not the same as the global one, but still).

The data is somewhat outdated: Extinction is defined relative to the initial glacier outlines from the Randolph Glacier Inventory (RGI v6.0): released July 28, 2017.
maelito 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Just checked the Glacier Blanc in the Massif des Écrins. The map's glacier vector perimeter is completely wrong : the glacier has retreated hundreds of meters already.

I hope this is just a map thing, and not the base for these predictions :/

dawnerd 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Weird seeing this posted as I’m up in Alaska right now viewing glaciers and being sad about how much they’ve receded.

Doesn't work on safari
kyralis 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Works for me? What version are you running?
Kapura 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Obviously nobody wants this, but if i cant ask my chatbot what it thinks of the texts my wife sends me we'd be lost as a civilization.
pprice 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

The joke lands, but as far as I know data centers are still only around 1-2% of global electricity, and chatbots are a slice of that. Glacier loss is mostly a century of coal, oil and gas. The worry is the growth rate, not the current share.

Why do people like to pretend AI is reason for climate change?

Climate change has been problem for way longer.

tito 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Another dimension to add is how global warming is uniquely heating up at the 4,500 to 5,500 m elevation mark, coincidentally right where glaciers are

(tldr properties of how our atmosphere works and the pollution we put in it ends up being a laser beam at the same height as glaciers form)

Paper here: eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/id/eprint/235707/1/NATREVEARTHENVIRON-24-558_-_Pepin_final.pdf

10.1038/s43017-025-00740-4

Pepin, N. et al. (2025). "Elevation-dependent climate change in mountain environments." Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 6(12), 772-788.

snthd 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

The maximum category is "Survives through 2100". Not great, not terrible.
mitxela 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

We chose this and we're still choosing it right now.
encomiast 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

This does seem to be the result of human activity. But I'm not really sure how the words 'we' and 'choose' work in a sentence like that. The collective of humanity doesn't really make choices the way I understand that word. And, while individual citizens make choices that contribute to this, and business people and politicians make choices that prioritize the short-term over the long term, it's not really correct to say they prefer and therefor choose the climate change. It seems like we don't have a good vocabulary for talking about the cumulative results of small choices.

Agree. It's been my position for a while that we've de facto decided to do nothing to prevent warming and we'll just live with the consequences.

Strong agree on this. I don't think I could do nothing any harder than I already am. Could you? Could any of us?
a1exyz 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

i am doing something about it personally with the citizens climate lobby
tito 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Thanks for what you do! Here's a recent post on my newsletter about recognizing those who do the work: https://tito.co/posts/why-dont-i-complain-about-carbon-dioxi...
miroljub 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

defrost 19 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Yes, us - maybe scroll down to the part that points out Milankovitch cycles alone predict the earth should be cooling now (it isn't) and that

  non-orbital effects can be important (for example, the human impact on the environment principally increases greenhouse gases resulting in a warmer climate)
So, nice deflection attempt - but no prize.
rneal 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Milankovitch shifts play out over tens of thousands of years. Orbital change since 1900 is negligible. Which part of the orbit moved enough in 120 years to melt Alpine glaciers? Cycles explain ice ages fine, but they can't explain century-scale retreat.
flint 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

What makes the "choosing" part concrete for me is flipping between the warming scenarios on the map. Going from 1.5C to 2.7C isn't a small difference. Whole regions like the Alps and the Caucasus go from "thinned out" to basically gone.
tito 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

For anyone here looking to "do something" about global warming...One thing we're working on is how to avert the worst impacts of the 2026 El Niño, and use that as a way to break open a new conversation about the warming planet and what we can do about it.

One thing we need help with today is finding any other events at New York Climate Week that are about El Niño to feature on our site: https://elninoready.earth/

tito 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Is anyone here good at building lists of contacts? We're sending out a "Q&A about El Niño" to everyone organizing events at New York Climate Week, with the goal of having them spent 2 minutes talking about El Niño at their event.

We have a partial list...could use some help!


It's funny that your kinds of ideas were heresy a decade ago. Back then, we weren't supposed to think there was anything we could do about the effects of global warming in case we started to think mitigation was possible and stopped panicking. I suppose now that's politically permissiable?
tito 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Hmm. If being "politically permissible" has shifted, it's probably away from taking action at all.

What's shifted in the other direction is that it's getting too damn hot here and some people are starting to notice.

ben170 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Nit: "extinction" is borrowed from biology here. Glaciologists would say "disappearance", and I think the cutoff is some tiny residual ice volume, not zero. I could be wrong, but that might explain the odd dates next to Okjökull. Still a nice map.

Agreed. Assuming that climate change is real, and to add, it is happening faster than nearly all predictions: what are your going to do for yourself, and for you children/nephews and nieces? How do we prepare them?
tito 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

For anyone here looking to "do something" about global warming...One thing we're working on is how to avert the worst impacts of El Niño, and use that as a way to break open a new conversation about the warming planet.

One thing we need help with today is finding any other events at New York Climate Week that are about El Niño to feature on our site: https://elninoready.earth/

vertex53 20 days ago | flag as AI [–]

Honestly, the boring stuff is what we actually did: bought a house away from flood zones and wildfire areas, and checked insurance availability first. Our quote was 3x for one place we liked. Insurers price climate risk faster than anyone, so I just follow them.