backtop


Print 205 comment(s) - last by eyebeeemmpawn.. on Oct 24 at 12:45 PM


Glacier Bay National Park. Two and a half centuries ago, the entire area was covered by thick sheets of ice.
High snowfall and cold weather to blame.

A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the first time in the area's recorded history, area glaciers have begun to expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3 degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound", said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years".

"On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface [in] late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying [did] not become snow free until early August."

Molnia, who works for the US Geological Survey, said it's been a "long time" since area glaciers have seen a positive mass balance -- an increase in the total amount of ice they contain.

Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.

Those records date from the mid 1700s, when the region was first visited by Russian explorers.  Molnia estimates that Alaskan glaciers have lost about 15% of their total area since that time -- an area the size of Connecticut.

One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay didn't exist at all -- only a solid wall of ice. From that time until the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and surrounding area.

Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that’s just the amount of warming that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.

Molnia says one cold summer doesn't mean the start of a new climatic trend. At least years like this, however, might mark the beginning of another Little Ice Age.

As DailyTech reported earlier, Arctic sea ice this year has also increased substantially from its low in 2007.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Objective Truth
By sgw2n5 on 10/16/2008 2:11:17 PM , Rating: 2
Imagine how different the world would be if ~2000 years ago Jerusalem would have had an asylum. We would probably have flying cars and nuclear fusion by now if it weren't for all of those centuries when science was seen as perverse and heretical, and science is still seen that way by many people (especially in America and the Middle east).

FIT-
Jesus was real, he was just a pacifist jewish guy who convinced people he was the son of a deity.


RE: Objective Truth
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 2:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
FIT- Jesus was real, he was just a pacifist jewish guy who convinced people he was the son of a deity.


I said I didn't believe in him. Not that he didn't exist. He did exist. That much we know from Roman documents.


RE: Objective Truth
By masher2 (blog) on 10/16/2008 2:58:13 PM , Rating: 2
Eh? Not unless they've found some new primary source documents since I took college history. The first independent historical records to him show up 60 years after his death, after the Jesus myth was already widespread.


RE: Objective Truth
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 3:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.gotquestions.org/did-Jesus-exist.html

And your point is sort of a reason I do not believe. It's asking me to believe in things written 1,900-6,000 years ago by people who if they saw me holding a flashlight would accuse me of sorcery.

Am I nearly 100% certain (since there is not way I can be 100% sure) that a man named Jesus or that history has called Jesus existed? Yes. Do I think he was the son of God? No. Not saying he wasn't, but just that I have a hard time believing he was.

Even stories like King Arthur are rooted in truths. Did he fight dragons and stuff? No. Did he exist? Yes. Actually the last King Arthur movie they made that I saw was rooted in what we've come to learn more recently about him.


RE: Objective Truth
By Curelom on 10/16/2008 3:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
Are you saying Jesus is responsible for the dark ages?
The dark ages were due to an apostate church that no longer followed his doctrine.

You're also claiming he would have been thrown in an asylum if they had one?

I think you need to read your history a little better.

I'd respond more, but this is already WAY off topic.

Jesus is the son of God and does live even today.


RE: Objective Truth
By sgw2n5 on 10/16/2008 3:55:55 PM , Rating: 2
You keep right on believing that, good for you.

Since he is alive and well today, where might I find him? Do you have his cell#?

...i think i already know how your going to answer this.


RE: Objective Truth
By FITCamaro on 10/16/2008 4:55:53 PM , Rating: 2
Don't make fun of him for his beliefs. He has a right to them. They aren't stupid or ignorant. That's why they're called beliefs. And it's why we live in a free country.

I have no problem with anyone's beliefs as long as they do not involve harming me and they do not try to force them on me. Now radical Islam I have a problem with since it calls for my death.

He has tried to do neither.


RE: Objective Truth
By sgw2n5 on 10/16/2008 6:45:17 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't call his beliefs stupid or ignorant, and yes, of course he has a right to believe whatever he wants. I have no problem with religion as long as religious ideals aren't legislated or otherwise forced upon me. Conversely, as an American, I also have a right to question or poke fun at anyone I want... and he has the right to ignore me. :D


RE: Objective Truth
By Gzus666 on 10/17/2008 10:33:54 AM , Rating: 2
Well with all due respect, many people believe in: global warming, holes in the ozone, evolution isn't real, the earth is flat, the earth is 5,000 years old, dinosaurs and people roamed the earth together, magic, ghosts, and the list could go on for days.

Does this automatically let them off the hook of any scrutiny because it is their belief? I think not, religion is the ultimate in ignorance, especially when you delve into it with a logical thought process and objective reasoning. Hell, look at the writings in the bible for just non-stop illogical crap. In the beginning stuff is riddled with fallacies that we have proven through science. God had to rest? Really? Jesus had to die for people's sins? Yea that makes perfect sense. Clearly an omnipotent being needs sacrifice to make things better. These things are just as stupid as the previously mentioned beliefs, lets not kid ourselves.

It is a children's story someone chose to take too far. I tend not to pick on the Hindus and Buddhists, but only cause they rarely bother anyone with their beliefs, so they don't come up. They are silly, but at least they don't bother people with their BS.

Do I think they are all entitled to believe in these things? But of course. Do I think they are free from being questioned? Of course not. I don't see why they are automatically given free reign just cause they are in a cult (religion).


RE: Objective Truth
By InvertMe on 10/16/2008 4:13:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Jesus is the son of God and does live even today.


After you said that I felt really sorry for you.. Odd...


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith

Related Articles
Arctic Sees Massive Gain in Ice Coverage
September 3, 2008, 2:44 PM
















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki