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 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.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

Related Articles
















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