Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather


Island Boy

Recommended Posts

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/53884.html

By Craig Medred | Anchorage Daily News

Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.

Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wait!!!!!

Didn't we hear last year from the AGW folks the polar sea ice was going to melt away by this year opening up the NW passage? :rolleyes:

Let's see, rapid increase in sea ice and record setting early snowfall. We also have the lowest amount of solar activity (so far) in the last 100 years. There is a very strong correlation between low solar activity and colder global temps. Current predictions of solar output are forecasted to be far below normal for the next 40 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok.....Ok.... everyone close your eyes. This is NOT happening.....

Ok, we need a new Boogy Man now... and quick. Bin Laden is dead and so is Global Warming. What ever happened to that video of the Alien peeping in some guy's window?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't we hear last year from the AGW folks the polar sea ice was going to melt away by this year opening up the NW passage? :rolleyes:

Let's see, rapid increase in sea ice and record setting early snowfall. We also have the lowest amount of solar activity (so far) in the last 100 years. There is a very strong correlation between low solar activity and colder global temps. Current predictions of solar output are forecasted to be far below normal for the next 40 years.

1. You are right about solar activity, but it isn't just low now, its been low for the last couple of years.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt

and yet GLOBALLY this year so far is still the 9th warmest on record so far:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/sep/global.html

Kind of unbelievable based on that correlation between temps and solar activity? I wonder what explains that. Couldn't have anything to do with green house gasses?

2. Despite, the appearantly massively slow start of the solar cycle, the prediction for this one still appears to still be similar to the last one:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html. Solar cycle 25 appears to be a different story, but that of course that's about a decade away:

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/05/11/solar-forecasting-decades-out/

3. Nobody ever said there ISN'T a link between solar output and global temps.

4. Lastly, yes, if solar output plummets global warming will likely be delayed until solar activity comes back up. Unfortunately, until the end of last year, I never saw anybody advance the arguement that global warming didn't matter because there was going to be an extended decrease in solar output starting in 2008 (or even 2018).

Sometimes if you advance enough wrong arguements you eventually get lucky and hit one that's right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes if you advance enough wrong arguements you eventually get lucky and hit one that's right.

That sort of describes Al Gore don't it?...of course I'm not sure he has hit on a right one yet. ;)

Bang..:rotflmao:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

SO does this mean other ES posters will listen to me when I say carbon emissions do NOT equal global warming? And the "dating back to 1946" comment, how the hell can you take anyone seriouslly who is predicting what weather on Earth will be like 50-100 years from now when they only have 50 years of data to go off of? Last time i checked, my weatherman can't tell me if it is going to rain for sure next Tuesday, but somehow, with less than 50 years of data, someone can accurately predict global tempuratures centuries away.

For those who are concerned about "global warming" I suggest you research solar intensity. You know that thing in the sky, the sun? well it's kinda like a ball of gas that is combusting at different rates, sometimes it flares up, otehr times it cools down. And in our recent history, when all this GW BS popped up, the sun was having a "hot cycle", which created hotter temperatures on earth. The last time someone tried to link global tempuratures to carbon emissions, was in the early 70's, when the sun was on a "cool cycle" and the research in that study concluded that carbon emissions would lead us to a premature ice age.

My point is, if you look for something long enough, you will eventually find it, whether it is real or not. And to futher point out how dumb the carbon theory is, if it where true, the hottest part of the year would be these next few coming months, since most trees will shed their leaves and release all the carbon they absorbed during the spring and summer. I dont know about you, but it's getting chilly around here and most of the trees on my street have released all their harmful carbon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Global Warming" is a misleading term. Yes the temperature will rise on average, but we will aslo see a huge increase in extreme weather patterns... the provided article is a great example of that.

In other words, the "some places are cooling" argument against "Global Warming" is a purely linguistic one, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You are right about solar activity, but it isn't just low now, its been low for the last couple of years.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt

and yet GLOBALLY this year so far is still the 9th warmest on record so far:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/sep/global.html

Kind of unbelievable based on that correlation between temps and solar activity? I wonder what explains that. Couldn't have anything to do with green house gasses?

2. Despite, the appearantly massively slow start of the solar cycle, the prediction for this one still appears to still be similar to the last one:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html. Solar cycle 25 appears to be a different story, but that of course that's about a decade away:

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/05/11/solar-forecasting-decades-out/

3. Nobody ever said there ISN'T a link between solar output and global temps.

4. Lastly, yes, if solar output plummets global warming will likely be delayed until solar activity comes back up. Unfortunately, until the end of last year, I never saw anybody advance the arguement that global warming didn't matter because there was going to be an extended decrease in solar output starting in 2008 (or even 2018).

Sometimes if you advance enough wrong arguements you eventually get lucky and hit one that's right.

Quite selective on some of us here that have totally ignored your post. I guess having legitimate data to back up your argument is hard to argue with, huh?

Then again, people are slowly coming to the realization that carbon emissions do pose a threat if they are not curbed back. Hell, even the Catholic church has embraced the global warming cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another circle jerk of ignorance thread.

"Yeah, it's all a big SCAM, man! Those damn commie egghead elitist scientists trying to trick us with their radical science agenda! It just snowed in my backyard - no way the planet as a whole is getting warmer!"

Have fun with this one PeterMP. You're on your own. I used up my energy long ago, about 33 of these threads ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another circle jerk of ignorance thread.

"Yeah, it's all a big SCAM, man! Those damn commie egghead elitist scientists trying to trick us with their radical science agenda! It just snowed in my backyard - no way the planet as a whole is getting warmer!"

Have fun with this one PeterMP. You're on your own. I used up my energy long ago, about 33 of these threads ago.

Everyone should refrain from using limitted anectodal evidence to prove or disprove the issue. Sadly, neither side does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another circle jerk of ignorance thread.

"Yeah, it's all a big SCAM, man! Those damn commie egghead elitist scientists trying to trick us with their radical science agenda! It just snowed in my backyard - no way the planet as a whole is getting warmer!"

Have fun with this one PeterMP. You're on your own. I used up my energy long ago, about 33 of these threads ago.

So you agree that videos or anecdotes about specific places that are warming are ridiculous too?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you agree that videos or anecdotes about specific places that are warming are ridiculous too?

Absolutely I agree.

Anyone who says "it's hotter this summer in Nebraska" is being just as big of an idiot. Anyone who says "Hurricane Bobo was more severe because of global warming" is being just as big of an idiot. Individual short term or anecdotal events in specific locations are not useful at all.

The problem is global, creeping and longterm. No one can predict exactly how it will affect individual spots on the planet. It might get a little cooler in Ireland as an ocean current shifts, but much hotter in Suriname due to the same current. Rain might fall less on the Ukraine, but more on the Sahara. Things are going to change, but no computer model can possibly predict exactly how.

Doesn't mean that the problem is not real and terribly bad for Humans as a whole, of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Absolutely I agree.

Anyone who says "it's hotter this summer in Nebraska" is being just as big of an idiot. Anyone who says "Hurricane Bobo was more severe because of global warming" is being just as big of an idiot. Individual short term or anecdotal events in specific locations are not useful at all.

The problem is global, creeping and longterm. No one can predict exactly how it will affect individual spots on the planet. It might get a little cooler in Ireland as an ocean current shifts, but much hotter in Suriname due to the same current. Rain might fall less on the Ukraine, but more on the Sahara. Things are going to change, but no computer model can possibly predict exactly how.

Doesn't mean that the problem is not real and terribly bad for Humans as a whole, of course.

Well, that's a consistent position, so I have to respect that. I suspect the only thing we'd really disagree on is the be-all to end-all cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. You are right about solar activity, but it isn't just low now, its been low for the last couple of years.

http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/greenwch/spot_num.txt

and yet GLOBALLY this year so far is still the 9th warmest on record so far:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/sep/global.html

Kind of unbelievable based on that correlation between temps and solar activity? I wonder what explains that. Couldn't have anything to do with green house gasses?

2. Despite, the appearantly massively slow start of the solar cycle, the prediction for this one still appears to still be similar to the last one:

http://www.swpc.noaa.gov/SolarCycle/SC24/index.html. Solar cycle 25 appears to be a different story, but that of course that's about a decade away:

http://www.universetoday.com/2006/05/11/solar-forecasting-decades-out/

3. Nobody ever said there ISN'T a link between solar output and global temps.

4. Lastly, yes, if solar output plummets global warming will likely be delayed until solar activity comes back up. Unfortunately, until the end of last year, I never saw anybody advance the arguement that global warming didn't matter because there was going to be an extended decrease in solar output starting in 2008 (or even 2018).

Sometimes if you advance enough wrong arguements you eventually get lucky and hit one that's right.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

You ever hear of lag? The avg time for solar output to have any effect is 8 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite selective on some of us here that have totally ignored your post. I guess having legitimate data to back up your argument is hard to argue with, huh?

Then again, people are slowly coming to the realization that carbon emissions do pose a threat if they are not curbed back. Hell, even the Catholic church has embraced the global warming cause.

Too bad he forgot a critical part in his arguement...

Here's some "legitimate data" for you to look at...

http://www.spacecenter.dk/~hsv/

http://www.space.dtu.dk/English/Research/Research_sections/Sun_Climate.aspx

http://www.met.rdg.ac.uk/~swshargi/WebStuff/Pubs/Abstracts/Harrison&Stephenson06.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading comprehension my friend. I never said that cosimic rays have no effect.

The flip side of that is that the chemistry underlying global warming is even older and unrefuted. Green house gasses will absorb energy and release it through vibrations and other means. That energy has to go somewhere and most likely will manifest itself as increased temps (i.e. an increase in the kinetic energy).

This goes back over 100 years. Nobody refutes it. Nobody doubts that we are increasing the levels of green house gasses in the atmosphere drastically. Nobody has shown the energy is going anywhere else, but temps.

To say that climate change is the result of cosmic rays, which is still a pretty novel and debated idea, but that green house gasses play no role, which is based on much older and unrefuted science is ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...