More Bad News for Global Warming Donkeys

[festeringZit]

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

Alaska glaciers grew this year, thanks to colder weather

<!-- story_videobox.comp --> <!-- /story_videobox.comp --> 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.
<!-- story_factbox.comp --> <!-- /story_factbox.comp --> "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.
That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle.

Bad weather was good for Alaska glaciers

MASS BALANCE: For decades, summer snow loss has exceeded winter snowfall.
By CRAIG MEDRED
cmedred@adn.com
Published: October 13th, 2008 11:08 PM
Last Modified: October 13th, 2008 09:32 AM
Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008.
Click to enlarge
Story tools
Comments (35)
Recommend (2)
E-mail a friend
Print
<script type="text/javascript"> var tmpURL = window.location.href; function im_story() { var action; msg = 'aim:goim?'; msg += 'message='; msg += tmpURL; document.Form.action = msg; document.Form.submit(); } function newsvine_story() { window.open('http://www.newsvine.com/_wine/save?popoff=1&u="' + tmpURL + '"','newsvine','toolbar=no,width=590,height=600,resizable=yes,scrollbars=yes') } </script> <form onsubmit="javascript: im_story();" name="Form" id="Form" method="post"> </form> Digg this
Seed Newsvine
Send link via AIM

<script src="http://d.yimg.com/ds/badge.js" badgetype="text" showbranding="1">anchorage_dai626:http://www.adn.com/news/environment/story/555283.html</script>Yahoo! Buzz
Font size : A | A | A


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.
That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle.
ADVERTISEMENT
<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript"> <!-- document.write('<scr' + 'ipt language="JavaScript" src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/mi.adn00/News/Science/Environment;dcove=d;pl=story;lvl6=Environment;loc=ats;pos=MREC01;' + dart_reg + dart_segs + dart_tk + kw_str + 'sz=300x250;tile=3;ord=' + ord + '?" type="text/javascript"></scr' + 'ipt>'); //--> </script><script language="JavaScript" src="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/mi.adn00/News/Science/Environment;dcove=d;pl=story;lvl6=Environment;loc=ats;pos=MREC01;reg=0;sz=300x250;tile=3;ord=3991630544133837.5?" type="text/javascript"></script><!--dart_adid_197197800--> <script src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TagPublish/getjs.aspx?action=VIEWAD&cwrun=200&cwadformat=300X250&cwpid=501699&cwwidth=300&cwheight=250&cwpnet=1&cwtagid=12490"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://tag.contextweb.com/TAGPUBLISH/getad.aspx?tagver=1&if=0&ca=VIEWAD&cp=501699&ct=12490&cf=300X250&cn=1&cr=200&cw=300&ch=250&cads=0&cwu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.adn.com%2Fnews%2Fenvironment%2Fstory%2F555283.html&mrnd=210427"></script><script language="JavaScript"> var bnum=new Number(Math.floor(99999999 * Math.random())+1); document.write('<SCR'+'IPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" '); document.write('SRC="http://servedby.advertising.com/site=699341/size=300250/bnum='+bnum+'/optn=1"></SCR'+'IPT>'); </script><script language="JavaScript" src="http://servedby.advertising.com/site=699341/size=300250/bnum=99880826/optn=1"></script><object classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=5,0,0,0" width="300" height="250">


<embed src="http://bannerfarm.ace.advertising.com/bannerfarm/93268/25042_300x250_FCR_02_07-08-08.swf?clickTag=http://servedby.advertising.com/click/site=0000713440/mnum=0000590278/cstr=99880826=_48f601ba,5751489929,699341%5E463845%5E77%5E0%21713440%5E590278%5E1%5E0,1_/xsxdata=$xsxdata/bnum=99880826&siteValue=0000713440" quality="high" wmode="opaque" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" width="300" height="250"></object> <iframe src="http://pixel.quantserve.com/pixel/p-01-0VIaSjnOLg.gif?tags=ADSDAQ.BUSINESSINDUSTRY.GREENSOLUTIONS,501699," marginwidth="0" marginheight="0" allowtransparency="true" scrolling="no" width="0" frameborder="0" height="0"></iframe>
<noscript> </noscript>


Mass balance is the difference between how much snow falls every winter and how much snow fades away each summer. For most Alaska glaciers, the summer snow loss has for decades exceeded the winter snowfall. The result has put the state's glaciers on a long-term diet. Every year they lose the snow of the previous winter plus some of the snow from years before. And so they steadily shrink.
Since Alaska's glacial maximum back in the 1700s, Molnia said, "I figure that we've lost about 15 percent of the total area."
What might be the most notable long-term shrinkage has occurred at Glacier Bay, now the site of a national park in Southeast Alaska. When the first Russian explorers arrived in Alaska in the 1740s, there was no Glacier Bay. There was simply a wall of ice across the north side of Icy Strait.
That ice retreated to form a bay and what is now known as the Muir Glacier. And from the 1800s until now, the Muir Glacier just kept retreating and retreating and retreating. It is now back 57 miles from the entrance to the bay, said Tom Vandenberg, chief interpretative ranger at Glacier Bay.
That's farther than the distance from glacier-free Anchorage to Girdwood, where seven glaciers overhang the valley surrounding the state's largest ski area. The glaciers there, like the Muir and hundreds of other Alaska glaciers, have been part of the long retreat.
Overall, Molnia figures Alaska has lost 10,000 to 12,000 square kilometers of ice in the past two centuries, enough to cover an area nearly the size of Connecticut.
Molnia has just completed a major study of Alaska glaciers using satellite images and aerial photographs to catalog shrinkage. The 550-page "Glaciers of Alaska" will provide a benchmark for tracking what happens to the state's glaciers in the future.
Climate change has led to speculation they might all disappear. Molnia isn't sure what to expect. As far as glaciers go, he said, Alaska's glaciers are volatile. They live life on the edge.
"What we're talking about to (change) most of Alaska's glaciers is a small temperature change; just a small fraction-of-a-degree change makes a big difference. It's the mean annual temperature that's the big thing.
"All it takes is a warm summer to have a really dramatic effect on the melting.''
Or a cool summer to shift that mass balance the other way.
One cool summer that leaves 20 feet of new snow still sitting atop glaciers come the start of the next winter is no big deal, Molnia said.
Ten summers like that?
Well, that might mark the start of something like the Little Ice Age.
During the Little Ice Age -- roughly the 16th century to the 19th -- Muir Glacier filled Glacier Bay and the people of Europe struggled to survive because of difficult conditions for agriculture. Some of them fled for America in the first wave of white immigration.
The Pilgrims established the Plymouth Colony in December 1620. By spring, a bitterly cold winter had played a key role in helping kill half of them. Hindered by a chilly climate, the white colonization of North America through the 1600s and 1700s was slow.
As the climate warmed from 1800 to 1900, the United States tripled in size. The windy and cold city of Chicago grew from an outpost of fewer than 4,000 in 1800 to a thriving city of more than 1.5 million at the end of that century.
The difference in temperature between the Little Ice Age and these heady days of American expansion?
About three or four degrees, Molnia said.
The difference in temperature between this summer in Anchorage -- the third coldest on record -- and the norm?
About three degrees, according to the National Weather Service.
Does it mean anything?
Nobody knows. Climate is constantly shifting. And even if the past year was a signal of a changing future, Molnia said, it would still take decades to make itself noticeable in Alaska's glaciers.
Rivers of ice flow slowly. Hundreds of feet of snow would have to accumulate at higher elevations to create enough pressure to stall the current glacial retreat and start a new advance. Even if the glaciers started growing today, Molnia said, it might take up to 100 years for them to start steadily rolling back down into the valleys they've abandoned.
"It's different time scales," he said. "We're just starting to understand."
As strange it might seem, Alaska's glaciers could appear to be shrinking for some time while secretly growing. Molnia said there are a few glaciers in the state now where constant snow accumulations at higher elevations are causing them to thicken even as their lower reaches follow the pattern of retreat fueled by the global warming of recent decades.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

This is a pretty complete self ass-kicking. Did you even read the article you posted?

"Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska"

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

"For most Alaska glaciers, the summer snow loss has for decades exceeded the winter snowfall. The result has put the state's glaciers on a long-term diet. Every year they lose the snow of the previous winter plus some of the snow from years before. And so they steadily shrink."

"Since Alaska's glacial maximum back in the 1700s, Molnia said, "I figure that we've lost about 15 percent of the total area."

"When the first Russian explorers arrived in Alaska in the 1740s, there was no Glacier Bay. There was simply a wall of ice across the north side of Icy Strait.

That ice retreated to form a bay and what is now known as the Muir Glacier. And from the 1800s until now, the Muir Glacier just kept retreating and retreating and retreating. It is now back 57 miles from the entrance to the bay"

"Overall, Molnia figures Alaska has lost 10,000 to 12,000 square kilometers of ice in the past two centuries"

"Climate change has led to speculation they might all disappear."
​

Nearly every line in that article supports global warming, but because they've had one colder than ususal season, you're attempting to throw this back up in the face of scientists who almost unanimously agree that global warming is a fact? Hell, even the majority of your ridiculous party are coming around to this reality.

So not only are you smarter than evolutionary biologists, you're also superior to climatologists? If true, those would be pretty admirable traits. However, it's much easier to believe you're a quote-mining jackhole who will be among that last people in his own political party to finally see the light.

Hey, the Dow went up 900 points on Monday!!! The crisis is over!!

 

[Willie99]

good point DEC

I think the Model T came out 200 years ago.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

good point DEC

I think the Model T came out 200 years ago.

I know what you're saying and I agree with you.

I think when the dust settles the evidence will clearly show that this is just a natural cycle. Hell, we're still coming out of an ice age.

 

[Willie99]

I know what you're saying and I agree with you.

I think when the dust settles the evidence will clearly show that this is just a natural cycle. Hell, we're still coming out of an ice age.

Then we're on the same page

:think2:

 

[pubguy]

Our climate is steadily getting warmer. This can, and has been, measured and documented. The debate is whether it's due to Al Gore's hot air speeches (read: man-made) or natural fluctuations beyond human control. Many global warming types point to the Industrial Revolution as the starting point of humans making it warmer with our release of bad stuff. This article suggests that the warming trend began more than a hundred years before.


"Since Alaska's glacial maximum back in the 1700s, Molnia said, "I figure that we've lost about 15 percent of the total area."

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Then we're on the same page

:think2:

If your page says that global warming is occurring but humans have had little to no effect, then yes. Al Gore makes me puke.

:toast:

zit is in the ever thinning "global warming is not occurring" crowd.

 

[festeringZit]

If your page says that global warming is occurring but humans have had little to no effect, then yes. Al Gore makes me puke.

:toast:

zit is in the ever thinning "global warming is not occurring" crowd.

Actually, If you read what I have continuously posted on all the
global warming threads over and over ad nauseum, I've stated
many times that I believe in global temperature cycles, and that
man has little or no affect on those cycles.

 

[festeringZit]

If you don't believe me, I will dig them up for you.

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

So what was the point of this thread?

 

[DeathEatsaCracker]

Actually, If you read what I have continuously posted on all the
global warming threads over and over ad nauseum, I've stated
many times that I believe in global temperature cycles, and that
man has little or no affect on those cycles.

I would say that it goes far beyond global. Of course I'm not a climatologist like yourself, but based on the fact that evidence is showing that Mars, Titan, and Pluto are warming as well I would guess that our solar system is moving into a less-cold region of our galaxy. Even a minute increase would have big implications for us.

 

[eek.]

I think everyone knows we pollute too much, and the planets temperature fluctuates, but globul warming is a political scam to reduce consumption as far as I'm concerned, and if it gets outed as the scam that I think it is then that won't do any of us any good as far as any genuine "climate emergencies" are concerned.

:grandmais

 

[tiznow]

the sun finally has a sunspot on it but not a sign its coming outta its solar minimum stage yet....need to see more

http://www.spaceweather.com/

 

[pubguy]

I would say that it goes far beyond global. Of course I'm not a climatologist like yourself, but based on the fact that evidence is showing that Mars, Titan, and Pluto are warming as well I would guess that our solar system is moving into a less-cold region of our galaxy. Even a minute increase would have big implications for us.

We better start recycling more plastic and glass...QUICK!

 

[tiznow]

but globul warming is a political scam to reduce consumption as far as I'm concerned
:grandmais

nah all the environ wacko shit used to make libbies feel good about themselves that they are doing some good like recycling or what not while they continue to consume way beyond their means

or maybe they fuel their cars with ethanol from corn using the E-85 shit....which is a huge scam......and not environmentally friendly

only way to be environmentally friendly is to consume less shit period

but that's not good for the man

:cripwalk:

 

[Romanowski]

I think its obvious to to anyone rational that global man made warming is a farce and a political scheme to tax

however that doesnt change the fact that we do indeed need to be more resourceful

 

[tiznow]

really don't know how you can say that romo

this debate will go on for a while

we'll see if global temps get warmer at the next peak of the solar cycle

the problem i have with the global warmists is they don't take fluctuations in our heat source into account

as usual tizgloom stuck in the middle of things

saying some truth to both sides how much affect man has? probably not that much.....but over the course of 1000s of years could really pile up

have to realize industrialization is a very new thing as far as the history of the earth goes

and like you say regardless

we need to pollute less and be more resourceful regardless

 

[Romanowski]

of course industrialization is a new thing n the grand scheme of things

and yes if we continue down this path we could irreversibly damage the earth

but we havent yet, is my position

yet we do need to find the least taxing, on the planet, alternative energy soon

 

[tiznow]

also will be interesting to see if this solar minimum is different like some solar scientists are saying and it is heading for a deep sleep rather than going through the normal textbook 11 year cycle

leading to global cooling which is much worse for man than global warming

and if man does have an effect on raising global temps it'll actually help us in that situation

 

[eek.]

Going to be weird to see oil going the same way as coal.

I presume renewables will do the bulk of things to come.