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

Global warming is not a yearly thing
By PrinceGaz on 11/28/2008 7:55:46 PM , Rating: -1
Posting links to studies that show part of the world seems to be cooling this year, or for two or three years is irrelevant. Global-warming is not something that will happen overnight (unless there is some unforeseen trigger we are unaware of, which could mean there is a similar trigger for global-cooling that might kick in instead).

We all know that in the very short term (a year, or two or three years) some parts of the world are getting warmer, and other parts are getting cooler. That is pretty much all irrelevant really as weather patterns shift, we don't have el-nino every year for instance. If global-warming is to be proved or disproved (or at least for there to be any hope of doing so), we should be looking at averages over at least 10 years instead of individual year results, and preferably longer if reliable information is available for most of the last century. We've been burning foosil fuels in ever increasing amounts since the early 19th century when the industrial revolution started in Europe (the relatively small amount of wood that was burned before the industrial revolution is irrelevant in comparison), so decades, not individual years are what matter.

It is worth remembering that Norway as well as the UK getting colder are a predicted effect of global warming, as the reduction of the warm air from the gulfstream heading northeast over the atlantic is reduced. Britain at 50-60 deg N latitude has a very mild winter climate compared with most coastal countries at that latitude. It gets a helluva lot colder in that part of Canada than it does in the UK or Norway, so if there is a long-term reduction in temperatures in northwest Europe, that could be a sign of one of the predicted effects of global warming.

However, short-term temperature reductions here are irrelevant to the debate as it will only be significant if average temperatures over a much longer period have fallen. These posts of colder here, more ice there, less ice elsewhere - this year, or the last two or three years - are all meaningless until the timescale is extended to at least ten years to indicate a real underlying trend.

By wookie1 on 11/29/2008 1:41:19 AM , Rating: 3
"It is worth remembering that Norway as well as the UK getting colder are a predicted effect of global warming"

Wait, cooling is a side effect of warming? What are we worried about then? Also note that the models "predict" everything from slight cooling to steep warming, depending on which one you're looking at. They have model ensembles that run a wide range of scenarios, and they average the results. I'm glad I don't live on model earth, even if it is more predictable.

RE: Global warming is not a yearly thing
By Ringold on 11/29/2008 4:31:38 PM , Rating: 3
we should be looking at averages over at least 10 years instead of individual year results,

Funny you mention that, hasn't the last 10 years been flat/slightly cooling?

It is worth remembering that Norway as well as the UK getting colder are a predicted effect of global warming,

Of course, it's not just Norway. Florida has already set several historic daily lows this fall, along with several freezes. It snowed in Baghdad last year, and China saw perhaps the greatest dislocation of travelers in history last winter. A pretty wide variety of places are feeling a little chilled lately.

By Hexxx on 11/30/2008 3:02:03 PM , Rating: 2
It snowed in my hometown of Johannesburg, South Africa last July 2007. And the previous 2 or 3 years we had sleet. We're a few degrees south of the Tropic of Capricorn.

By Avitar on 12/1/2008 4:39:25 PM , Rating: 3
Global Warming nuts are a yearly thing. The problem is the models. I had some professors from NASA while I was in collage and learned a few things in the early days back when "The SST was going to destroy the ozone layer"

If the temperature rose to 150°F degrees, average the remaining ice sheets would still take four thousand years to melt. The sea level would rise about 40 feet, with another thirty feet rise to come as the depressed land underneath the Ice sheets rebounds over the next fifty thousand years.

Finally, an honors physics problem was that without green house gases the earth in its present orbit would be thirty degrees Celsius cooler than it is now. Other people who worked that problem came up with the Snowball Earth theory. Google “Snowball Earth” if you want to know what taking measures against "Global Warming" could hurt.

"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

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