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 lucasb on 11/30/2008 6:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
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".

By Ringold on 11/30/2008 7:12:04 PM , Rating: 5
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.

By masher2 (blog) on 11/30/2008 8:25:22 PM , Rating: 4
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:

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:

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:
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.

By Hawkido on 12/1/2008 12:01:52 PM , Rating: 2

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)

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

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?

"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes

Related Articles

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