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 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.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive

Related Articles
















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