Alaska Glaciers at Risk Of Melting...

[liveweatherman]

They’re large, rock-hard and grand spectacles — but Alaska’s great glaciers are in grave danger. The glacier recession rate accelerates every year, losing an average of 20 inches — almost twice the rate of loss seen in the 1980s and 1990s. Weekend TODAY’s Lester Holt joined acclaimed scientist Dr. Doug Causey, professor of biology at the University of Alaska Anchorage, for a close look at Alaska’s great natural wonders. They visited Spencer Glacier, which is now breaking off and calving due to rapid melting. While calving is normal for glaciers, the melting has been accelerated by climate change.

-(source: msnbc.msn.com/)

[HURAKAN]

The accelerated melting is happening worldwide and the main problem is that most of the fresh water on Earth is locked on glaciers. As they melt, more and more fresh water goes to the ocean.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Snowfall is making records all across Alaska. Snowfall piling on top of the glaciers makes the pressure that makes the glaciers. So I would assume that they are growing.

[HURAKAN]

Interestingly, in a warmer world, you would expect that in the winter the atmosphere would hold more moisture, which should increase the amount of snowfall. Which could explain the record snowfall.

[Extremeweatherguy]

I was up in Alaska last summer and witnessed many growing and retreating glaciers (sometimes right next to each other). The glacial expansion and reduction seems to have much more to do with long-term snowfall patterns in a localized area rather than temperature change (though temperature change obviously does have some impact).

[MGC]

I cruised Glacier Bay in August 2006. National Park Service rangers were on the ship (Coral Princess) and talked about the history of Glacier Bay. Seems the bay was completely covered in ice back in the 1700's. By the late 1700's the glaciers started to retreat. Today, over 200 years later, Glacier Bay is nearly ice free. The important thing to note is that the glaciers have been melting now over 200 years, long before humans started burning fossile fuels in great quanties. The melting is natural and is not human induced........MGC

[HURAKAN]

Even if humans have nothing to do with the melting, and tha't debatable, it's a big problem for future generations.

[TxWxFrisco]

:uarrow: Even if humans have nothing to do with the melting, and tha't debatable, it's a big problem for future generations.

Could you please explain how it is a "big" problem for "future generations"? Is this based on an assumption that "all" glaciers around the world are melting and that sea levels will rise due to this?

[HURAKAN]

:uarrow: Even if humans have nothing to do with the melting, and tha't debatable, it's a big problem for future generations.

Could you please explain how it is a "big" problem for "future generations"? Is this based on an assumption that "all" glaciers around the world are melting and that sea levels will rise due to this?

Sea level rise will be a major problem in the future. Especially for countries like Bangladesh, major coastal cities in the US and China, Holland, countless islands in the Pacific, and more. Another concern for future generations is that most of the Earth fresh water is locked in the glaciers, and if a great number of them melt completely, a lot of rivers could run dry and the communities that depend on them for water, food, agriculture, and transportation would have to move somewhere else.

[liveweatherman]

South America as well as Asia within few decades might be threaten in lack of water supplies if glaciers will continue to melt in fast rate. Millions of people will suffer also a big effect in agriculture mostly in china and india where this Gangotri Glacier in the Himalayas serve as the supplier of fresh water for the big rivers Ganges, Yellow and Yangtze Rivers in India and China during the dry season.. ..This makes a visible evidence and signal that the global temperature rises...

[GeneratorPower]

I cruised Glacier Bay in August 2006. National Park Service rangers were on the ship (Coral Princess) and talked about the history of Glacier Bay. Seems the bay was completely covered in ice back in the 1700's. By the late 1700's the glaciers started to retreat. Today, over 200 years later, Glacier Bay is nearly ice free. The important thing to note is that the glaciers have been melting now over 200 years, long before humans started burning fossile fuels in great quanties. The melting is natural and is not human induced........MGC

That argument makes far too much sense for modern science to accept.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Joe Bastardi linked to this, which claims an ice age is imminent.

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/ANURGENTSIGNALFORTHECOMINGICEAGE.pdf



The author is a 'retired engineer', not a climatologist or meteorologist, so I may be even less likely to believe this than a major AGW.

[Scott Patterson]

Another concern for future generations is that most of the Earth fresh water is locked in the glaciers, and if a great number of them melt completely, a lot of rivers could run dry and the communities that depend on them for water, food, agriculture, and transportation would have to move somewhere else.

Good point. I've spent quite a bit of time in the Atacama desert in South America. Thre are cities there that go decades or even centuries without any rainfall. In San Pedro de Atacama for example, it has not rained in over 400 years. The towns survive by snow and glacier melt in the high mountains, of which is dwindling a little bit almost every year.

[liveweatherman]

Some of the most dramatic shrinking has taken place in Europe with Norway's Breidalblikkbrea glacier thinning by close to 3.1 metres (2.9 metre water equivalent) during 2006 compared with a thinning of 0.3 metres (0.28 metres water equivalent) in the year 2005.

Other dramatic shrinking has been registered at Austria's Grosser Goldbergkees glacier, 1.2 metres in 2006 versus 0.3 in 2005; France's Ossoue glacier, nearly 3 metres versus around 2.7 metres in 2005; Italy's Malavalle glacier 1.4 metres versus around 0.9 metres in 2005; Spain's Maladeta glacier, nearly 2 metres versus 1.6 metres in 2005; Sweden's Storglaciaeren glacier, 1.8 metres versus close to 0.080 metres in 2005 and Switzerland's Findelen glacier, 1.3 metres versus 0.22 metres in 2005.

Not all of the close to 100 glaciers monitored posted losses with some thickening during the same period including Chile's Echaurren Norte glacier while others, such as Bolivia's Chacaltaya glacier; Canada's Place glacier; India's Hamtah glacier and the Daniels and Yawning glaciers in the Untied States shrank less in 2006 than they did in 2005.

However, for the close to 30 reference glaciers only one (Echaurren Norte in Chile) thickened over the same period.

-source (enn.com/ecosystems/article/33068)

[Dionne]

I lived and worked in Alaska for 20 years. Yes, there are glaciers retreating and yes there are glaciers building. The glaciers calving into the sea and retreating are the ones all the tourists get to see. The glaciers in the mountains are abundant. For a more personal observation you might consider taking a daytime flight on a clear day during the summer months from SeaTac to Anchorage. You'll be stunned by the number of glaciers/ice fields. Keep in mind that a lot of areas in the mountains arround the Gulf of Alaska receive upwards of 900 inches of snow every year.