backtop


Print 126 comment(s) - last by FPP.. on Dec 3 at 6:22 PM


A glacial region in Norway  (Source: NRK)
Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors results in Alaska, elsewhere.

After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir Elvehøy.

The flow rate of many glaciers has also declined. Glacier flow ultimately acts to reduce accumulation, as the ice moves to lower, warmer elevations.

The original trend had been fairly rapid decline since the year 2000.  

The developments were originally reported by the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).

DailyTech has previously reported on the growth in Alaskan glaciers, reversing a 250-year trend of loss. Some glaciers in Canada, California, and New Zealand are also growing, as the result of both colder temperatures and increased snowfall.

Ed Josberger, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, says the growth is "a bit of an anomaly", but not to be unexpected.

Despite the recent growth, most glaciers in the nation are still smaller than they were in 1982. However, Elvehøy says that the glaciers were even smaller during the 'Medieval Warm Period' of the Viking Era, prior to around the year 1350.

Not all Norwegian glaciers appear to be affected, most notably those in the Jotenheimen region of Southern Norway.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/2008 9:57:25 PM , Rating: -1
The warming effect of greenhouse gases is REAL, as shown by the conditions on Venus for example. The question as always is the amount of it happening on Earth. It gets even more complicated when it overlays with natural warming nd cooling cycles. This is why it is SILLY as Masher does to pick one tiny fact in one place on Earth for a couple of years and use it to support his anti warming crusade.

The energy output of the Sun is the smallest effect, internal heat from Earth is even smaller... the biggest ones are Earth's orbital motions.


RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By TheSpaniard on 11/27/2008 10:40:54 PM , Rating: 4
the sun has the GREATEST effect on the changes in earth's temperature because it is constantly changing (see: sunspots)


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/27/2008 10:52:13 PM , Rating: 3
How do you call the sun stable? The fact that it is always the same size in the sky means that its output is a constant? Like stated above, look up sunspots for one. The sun's output is extremely variable, and is a large cause of fluctuation.


RE: YAWN...
By ayat101 on 11/27/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/28/2008 12:37:13 AM , Rating: 5
In total insolation, the sun changes very little during a solar cycle, yes...a few tenths of a percent. However, in some frequency bands, such as the far ultraviolet, energy output can very by several percent. Do feedback effects exist which amplify these insolation changes to cause climate shifts? Many solar physicists believe they do.

Even more compelling is the widespread belief that orbital variations (ala Milankovitch cycles, etc) cause widescale climatic changes. The evidence for this is compelling...but those cycles also only cause very slight changes in total solar insolation themselves. Therefore, if one accepts the "orbital wobble" explanation of past climate shifts (many of which occurred much faster than the one we're now experiencing) then one has to accept such positive amplifications exist.


RE: YAWN...
By SeeManRun on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By whiskerwill on 11/28/2008 10:15:28 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Just what is the real downside to not polluting so much?
You mean, besides the $50 trillion dollars the UN says it'll cost to reduce emissions? And that's just to get started. The final bill is so large they're even afraid to even estimate it.

Maybe you and me are different, but I really don't look forward to a future where energy (and every product and service that depends on it, which is literally everything) is much more expensive. All to solve a "problem" that apparently doesn't even exist.


RE: YAWN...
By SeeManRun on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/29/2008 1:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
OK, now take all of the billions of people who actually cant afford that, then all of the countries that aren't going to play along, and what do you have left? a LOT more per person.


RE: YAWN...
By Ringold on 11/29/2008 5:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
Like the other guy just pointed out, that's more money than some people will earn in a lifetime.

Divide the 50 trillion by the 1 billion who actually could pay it, and it's $50,000. That's, what, two years or so of global rich-world output? As the current economy shows, just slight variations of 1 and 2% of total output can lead to huge increases in unemployment, and, well, just a lot of all-around suffering. The suffering isn't limited to just people who would pay the cost either because the world is deeply connected by international trade. A bank collapses in Europe, and Malaysians may loose chunks of their retirement. Euro-zone consumers cut back, and thousands of factories close (and have already closed) in China, etc.

If you think 50 trillion is trivial, stop paying attention to the current global government as if they are some kind of good example, tossing hundreds of billions around as if its nothing. Governments are going to have to "thread the (monetary) needle" carefully; if they get it wrong, hyperinflation catastrophe, if they get it right, possibly a repeat of Japan's decade-long stagnation.

It's not just me saying this, either. Numerous economists have done cost-benefit analysis suggesting that it makes sense to only spend relatively small sums of money curbing greenhouse gas emissions. Higher levels of spending could reduce output and thus reduce global warming damage in the long run, but by less than the value of forgone investments with that same marginal dollar. (Yeah, I know, left-wing ideology and economics doesn't mix well)


RE: YAWN...
By TomZ on 11/28/2008 10:32:49 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
do you still want to breathe in pollution?

The AGW debate is about CO2 - and CO2 is absolutely not a pollutant in the sense of the word as you are using it.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/28/2008 2:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. CO2 is a NATURAL gas. However, I'll drink to not being polluted with toxins. Except alcohol. That toxin running through my veins is often intentional (except when I'm forced to drink it at thin camp - they love us all liquored up because let's face it, anorexia is hot and beer makes freshman college girls fat within 2 years) and should only be of concern to parents who let their good-looking teenage daughters frequent the university bars on weekends. Scientists and the mass public however, can relax. CO2 is a natural gas, and so is my after-effect from drinking a few beers.


RE: YAWN...
By Avitar on 12/1/2008 5:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
What planet is JonnyDough from? Where I am from we have things called Volcanos. And every five hundred years or so a big one goes off and emits more CO2 than the last one hundred years of the industrial revolution. The biggest impact we have here on the levels of Carbon Dioxide is deforstation.

We would like to get people to replant the forest trees, primarily for the wood, like the United States started doing a century ago but we keep getting resistance from people who want to run their cars on "biofuels." The rest of us would use the coal-to-oil conversion for the next 300 years and pave the parking lots with nanoantennas during the next century.


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/28/2008 12:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
It depends exactly what you mean by stable. Is it going to explode or collapse? no. Is it going to massively fluctuate? no. But it will fluctuate. Again, i urge you to look into sunspots.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunspots

Each sunspot causes a fluctuation in the sun's energy output. (ie, temperature)


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/28/08, Rating: 0
RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/28/2008 6:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
How does health care and sun screen have anything to do with proving there are fluctuations in the sun? I never said it wasn't going to affect anything.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 11/29/2008 12:19:43 AM , Rating: 1
Get a REAL job! Dude, you're too serious.


RE: YAWN...
By inighthawki on 11/29/2008 2:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
I knew it wasn't serious, but it wouldve helped if your post had anything to do with what i was talking about.


RE: YAWN...
By JonnyDough on 12/1/2008 5:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
Well now, that's a bit selfish!


RE: YAWN...
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 9:54:21 AM , Rating: 2
Tom Cruise is stable in his acting output.... but does that make him stable in real life?

uhhhh...no.


RE: YAWN...
By porkpie on 11/27/2008 11:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
pick one tiny fact in one place on Earth
Norway, the Arctic, Antarctica, Canada, California, New Zealand, are all just "one place"? I think you need to learn basic counting skills.

Yeah, greenhouse gases warm the earth. That's why CO2 doesn't matter. Because water vapor is a much stronger greenhouse gas, and its a thousand times more prevalent.


RE: YAWN...
By SeeManRun on 11/28/08, Rating: -1
RE: YAWN...
By phxfreddy on 11/28/2008 10:19:43 AM , Rating: 3
Any one who believes in Global warming is either a non-scientist with a liberal arts degree or a scientist that gets his budget from the feds and is just a government schill.

Anyone with an ounce of sense can see global warming is not only a scam but the world is cooling.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 12:19:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Any one who believes in Global warming is either a non-scientist with a liberal arts degree or a scientist that gets his budget from the feds and is just a government schill .

So, in your opinion, AGW can be reduced to a conspiracy impulsed by non-scientists and government schills. And if this is not enough, you compare the support of a scientific theory with something that's faith-based (beliefs)
quote:
Anyone with an ounce of sense can see global warming is not only a scam but the world is cooling.

And then I'm supposed to take right-wingers seriously. Everything is a government-sponsored scam or a conspiracy of some sort. I'll give you some advice: if you want a conspiracy theory with some ground on reality, take a look at the financial world of the last 30 years (debt and currency crisis on the 3rd world, the birth of junk bonds, OTC derivatives, a forex market which is many times bigger than the underlying economy, insane leverage on the banking system, repealing of laws made in the 30s, deeply flawed models of risk analysis, etc)

In other unrelated news, the central area of Argentina is suffering the warmest November in 50 or 75 years. Links in Spanish:
http://genteadiario.blogspot.com/2008/11/noviembre...
http://www.lacapital.com.ar/contenidos/2008/11/26/...

This site tends more and more to the right. Even my right leaning friends (I'm considered a radical centrist) like to poke fun at the opinions (and some articles) written on this site.


RE: YAWN...
By sigilscience on 11/30/2008 4:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
the central area of Argentina is suffering the warmest November in 50 or 75 years
That means it was even warmer 75 years ago. If that's the best you can do to show the world is still warming up, you better give up while you can.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 5:43:58 PM , Rating: 1
It seems that your reading skills aren't up to the task:
- First, I didn't want to imply that this hot November here in Argentina is in anyway proof of AGW. If you read that sentence again you'll find a little amount of sarcasm ("... in other unrelated news...".
- Second, if you even bother to read the links (use an online translation service if you aren't fluent in Spanish) you'll know that this is the hottest November using reliable records. Some excerpts:
-"Con su máxima media de 31,4 grados hasta anteayer, este noviembre es el más caluroso del que tiene registro el Servicio Meteorológico, que elabora series de esos valores desde 1935, es decir, desde hace 73 años."
"With an average high of 31.4 ºC until yesterday (11/26), this November is the hottest (1.8 ºC more than the previous record and 4.7 ºC more than the "normal" average high) on the records kept by the National Weather Service, which began keeping records since 1935, 73 years ago"


RE: YAWN...
By sigilscience on 11/30/2008 7:59:14 PM , Rating: 3
According to my translator, that page just says the city itself set a record, not an entire region of the country. It's also a very fast growing city, which means temperatures are going to go up anyway, with or without global warming. All that extra black pavement and dark rooftops make for rising temperatures.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 12/1/2008 3:50:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
According to my translator, that page just says the city itself set a record, not an entire region of the country.

I only posted two examples (a blog referencing Buenos Aires and the online version of Rosario's main newspaper). Both cities are a mere example of a phenomenon which affected vast areas.
quote:
It's also a very fast growing city, which means temperatures are going to go up anyway, with or without global warming. All that extra black pavement and dark rooftops make for rising temperatures.

Bad call for the UHI effect.
- Most climate models are already adjusted for the UHI effect which, BTW, is thought as not being important in the general scheme of things.
- Rosario isn't a "very fast growing city".
- The weather stations of Bs. As. are placed in places not affected by urbanization.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroparque_Jorge_Newb...
http://www.buenosaires.gov.ar/areas/barrios/buscad...
- The records are far off the scale
"Aunque parezca pequeña, la diferencia de 1,5 grados entre las marcas de 1994 y las de este noviembre es muy elevada , explicó el licenciado Leis. Y agregó: Lo habitual es que las marcas se superen por apenas unas décimas ."

Straight from the horses' mouth:
http://www.smn.gov.ar/?mod=clima&id=73


RE: YAWN...
By Ringold on 11/30/2008 5:35:40 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
if you want a conspiracy theory with some ground on reality, take a look at the financial world of the last 30 years (debt and currency crisis on the 3rd world, the birth of junk bonds, OTC derivatives, a forex market which is many times bigger than the underlying economy, insane leverage on the banking system, repealing of laws made in the 30s, deeply flawed models of risk analysis, etc)


So, to spin things slightly different, you say he thinks its a conspiracy theory because he doesn't understand the science. Then you list some financial and economic issues which you don't understand, and then hint that it's a conspiracy. Nice.


RE: YAWN...
By lucasb on 11/30/2008 6:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then you list some financial and economic issues which you don't understand, and then hint that it's a conspiracy. Nice.

Thanks, but I understand those financial and economic issues. I even profit from them. Since you didn't understood my sarcasm, I'll make it more obvious:
Conspiracy theories are silly explanations made by ignorant people or people who developed high degrees of cynicism (lots of plausible explanations for this cynicism). Conspiracy theories have one key element, an elite who wants to hide things.
When you analyze AGW, there's no elite trying to hide things and there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians from different ideologies.
When you analyze the evolution of the global financial system in the last decades, you may find some well-connected people and some hints of an elite. Even if I think that this conspiracy theory is silly, stupid and lacking some key evidence I can "accept" that it has some "merits".


RE: YAWN...
By Ringold on 11/30/2008 7:12:04 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When you analyze AGW, there's no elite trying to hide things and there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians from different ideologies.


Since you understand economics, then perhaps you'll see what bothers me most about all this "science." In economics, if one has a model, they take the known population data, split it up, input some of the data and attempt to predict the rest. If it fails, the model is refined until it or does or trashed entirely as nonsense -- it definitely never sees the light of day in the public realm. As Masher points out, we're just now starting to get such climate models. The fact we've gone on and on about global warming with such guesswork suggests motivations exist beyond mere science. These people in the real world of finance wouldn't last a week.

Indeed, listen to some activists own admissions, and you'd know what those motivations are. I've linked before to environmentalist websites, particularly those with blogs and thus expressed views on a range of issues. They're almost all anti-trade, anti-development, left-wing front groups who find environmentalism a cute shroud to hide behind. Most are anti-nuclear, and many apparently still claim clean-coal doesn't exist or is an oxymoron -- despite the functional German coal plant that proves otherwise. If it's a solution, they're against it, unless its onerously expensive.

Of course politicians of different creeds would pander to those groups. They want to get re-elected, and a large portion of the population has been brainwashed with 'green' ideology and ideas like wind and solar being our future salvation. Notice some of the Republican's advocating a shift to the left for the party; they'd rather embrace John Maynard Keynes and get elected rather than embrace Goldwater or Milton Friedman and get left in the cold.

But this popular appeal therefore trickles back to the science. Want to study, say, squirrel populations? Forget it, times are hard, budgets are thin. Want to study squirrel populations and the impact of global warming? Ka-Ching, here's your grant money! The amount of government money spent globally on 'global warming' is amazing, but it has to be done by politicians to gain green 'cred'. And where have all these climate scientists come from? Where were they 30 years ago? Did we suddenly train thousands of competent climate specialists globally? I find it interesting that some of the climate scientists who were plying their trade long before this recent fad are some of the ones who tend to put up caution flags on GW.

At any rate, the conspiracy of GW isn't so much the science IMHO. The scientific consensus is just part of a feedback loop that represents the fundamental weakness of democracy. The conspiracy is in the response to global warming, and the policies advocated. Thats where the extremists are.


RE: YAWN...
By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2008 8:25:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians...
Consensus among politicans is meaningless. AGW is a dream come true for most elected officials: an excuse for more government, more taxes, and a "crisis" that only they can solve.

Among scientists, consensus doesn't exist. Just before reading your post, I happened to be watching some proceedings from the International Geological Convention this year in Norway. Attended by hundreds of researchers from around the globe, A panel debate on global warming was part of the agenda. With it headed by IPCC climate modelers and even an environment minister for the Danish government, the conclusion seemed foregone. However, once the panel allowed questions from the researchers in the audience, you'll see scientist after scientist question whether AGW exists and is a crisis:

http://www.33igc.org/coco/EntryPage.aspx?guid=1&Pa...

About half the scientists were openly skeptical of AGW; several denied it outright.

Last year, 100 scientists wrote an open letter to the UN IPCC, telling them their efforts were misguided. Among the signatories on that letter was the president of the World Federation of Scientists, a past president of the American Physical Society, and many other noted figures. Several were even IPCC expert reviewers themselves:

http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=10032

Since that letter was initially sent, several hundred more have chosen to add their names to it as well.

In any case, the claim of consensus itself is meaningless. As Michael Crichton says:
quote:
Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had .

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

... Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough . Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
My thanks again to Ringold or whoever it was who originally posted this text.


RE: YAWN...
By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 12:01:52 PM , Rating: 2
DAMMIT MASHER!

I should have been on yesterday (or finished reading the Thread), So I could have posted this before you! (or not posted it as you already had)


RE: YAWN...
By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 11:59:14 AM , Rating: 3
WARNING WARNING DANGER DANGER DANGER WARNING WARNING
The previous post contained an idiotic statment that SHOULD NEVER be used in a scientific discussion!

quote:
there's ample consensus among scientists and politicians


Consensus has NO place in science. You are either CORRECT or INCORRECT, and Politicians are never allowed in science.

Look up all the Scientific consensuses in history, you will witness an astronomical failure rate. The only time Scientific Consensus is correct is after the Scientific Individual (Discoverer/Inventor) has prooven it to the rest of the world, and the scientific community has to accept it because it is true. All other cases of Scientific Consensus were adopted to thwart or obstruct discoveries or inventions that the Scientific Consensus does not want to allow.

The only benefit of Scientific Consensus is to prevent Bogus Science from reaching main stream. It is not an indication of proof but rather disproof, such as mechanisms used in court which cannot proove guilt but only innocence.

As such anyone who cites Scientific Consensus as proof of a subject, only cites consensus as there is no other evidence. Stating Consensus is an admission that there is no proof and none forthcomming. It is a political ploy to further an ajenda of obstruction or misdirection.

If you had discovered a scientific principal or law. You could proove it scientifically. If you cannot proove it scientifically, it should be nothing more than a theory or hypothesis, no action should be taken, other than further studies until proof can be made.

Anything further?


RE: YAWN...
By Dreifort on 12/1/2008 10:00:38 AM , Rating: 2
Al Gore's next assignment is to attack the effect that Global War....errr...Climate Change is having on our lunar friend.

His next docu...err...movie will be titled, "An inconvenient night in Bangkok".

The movie will discuss how the moon's phases have been altered, thus causing mankind to become filled with hatred towards one another --- how not only is the temperature rising on our planet but in each of our very own hearts.

...it's a tear jerker I predict.


RE: YAWN...
By whiskerwill on 11/28/2008 10:20:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Every increase in temperature due to CO2, will put more water vapor into the atmosphere and increase the temperature that much more.
Yeah, and Santa fits down my chimney also. Even my 7 year old is too smart to believe that any more. If runaway warming can happen, why did it never happen before? There's been plenty of times CO2 levels were several times above what they are now.

Water vapor BLOCKS the same wavelengths CO2 does. Too much water, and you just get clouds, which reflect back a lot more solar energy than they absorb.


RE: YAWN...
By PKmjolnir on 11/28/2008 10:03:12 AM , Rating: 5
Thee conditions of venus shows what?

Do you mean that if we let some CO2 out in our atmosphere, our earth will become a fiery ball of death trough the following transformations:

A transformation of the surface to 80% cover of volcanic plains.
Abolishment of plate tectonics
Days growing longer; A lot longer in fact, to be specific: 243 times longer days.
An increase of air pressure at ground level by 90 times.
An increase of CO2 levels from 0.038% to ~96.5%(a 2500 times increase).

Or perhaps you just tried to scare us into converting to enviromentalists by pulling some grossly farfetched example with no scientific basis out of your ass?


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

Related Articles
















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