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

By thepalinator on 11/27/2008 11:10:12 PM , Rating: 3
It's hard to believe one sided and cherry picked reports
If you use a web translator on the link in the article, you see Norway's official news service saying the same thing. I think I'll believe the real world over your new religion of global warming.

By ayat101 on 11/27/2008 11:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
Real world? LOL My point is not that the information is totally false but that IT'S CHERRY PICKED out of context. Its meaning has thus been misrepresented.

I am going to believe REAL scientists that assess ALL facts in their proper and FULL context :) I am not going to believe Masher, a blogger with a following of school boys that has never managed to write an unbiased article on climate change and clearly has never had proper training in how to write a science review (judging by what he puts out on this site).

So, NO, I am staying with REAL SCIENCE for my information, and I am not joining the church of Masher, or scientology, or the Free Masons, or Satanism, or born again paganism, or the Gaia movement, etc.

By TomZ on 11/28/2008 10:37:43 AM , Rating: 2
All the AGW hoopla is based on computer modeling - not "real science." If you look at real science, i.e., actual temperature measurements, you'll see we're clearly in a period of global cooling.

And on top of that, even if it were happening, all of the dire predictions about the consequences of global warming are also extrapolations based on computer models. Again, no "real science" there.

It seems like all you "believe in" are fictional computer models. That takes a real faith, and I applaud you for that.

By Procurion on 11/28/2008 11:03:55 AM , Rating: 2
Better study your definitions. You speak of consensus, not science. Science must stand on it's own merit. Consensus is "because everyone says so". As I have said before, CO2 levels from eons before during previous warm periods measure existing levels of CO2. They have a string of information and make suppositions about them. CO2 MUST be present in a hot atmospheric environment, but does it cause it or is it there as an end result? There is no scientific proof of the cause of warming periods thousands of years ago, only educated guesses and consensus.

By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 12:18:16 PM , Rating: 2
Last Friday (Black Friday) a Wal-Mart Employee was trampled to death by Scientific Consensus. The equation in question was:
BLU-Ray player Sticker Price - 10%(Sticker Price) > Value of Human Life

Scientific Consensus is not only wrong (if it is not wrong it is irrelevent, as it is provable and therefore consensus is not needed) it is dangerous as it is only used to incite mob-like behavior in the sheep of society.

The sheep of society are the cannon fodder of Socialism.

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home
Related Articles

Most Popular ArticlesSmartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
UN Meeting to Tackle Antimicrobial Resistance
September 21, 2016, 9:52 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM
5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Update: Problem-Free Galaxy Note7s CPSC Approved
September 22, 2016, 5:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki