Glaciers Melting at an Alarming Rate

[liveweatherman]

VIENNA - Glaciers and mountain snow are melting earlier in the year than usual, meaning the water has already gone when millions of people need it during the summer when rainfall is lower, scientists warned on Monday.
"This is just a time bomb," hydrologist Wouter Buytaert said at a meeting of geoscientists in Vienna.
Those areas most at risk from a lack of water for drinking and agriculture include parts of the Middle East, southern Africa, the United States, South America and the Mediterranean.
source:msnbc.msn.com

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Based on what? The glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland, those which make up about a hundred times more ice then all the other small land glaciers put together are growing. Also the Casecades that I look at every day has had to close down this winter, with the snow pack nearing record levels for Oregon at least. Glaciers form from lots and lots of snow that compacts under their own weight to form soild ice more or less. Then they move outwards from there source area(area of snow fall). Glaciers are growing my friends. I will admit that a few of them are melting, but that is perfectly normal, climate patterns change all the time. That is how glaciers are.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Those areas most at risk from a lack of water for drinking and agriculture include parts of the Middle East, southern Africa, the United States, South America and the Mediterranean

If we did have glaciers in Southern Africa and the Middle East, I'll bet they'd have more drinking water.

[MGC]

Funny how some humans insist on living where there is no water or food.......MGC

[x-y-no]

Funny how some humans insist on living where there is no water or food.......MGC

Many people don't have means or opportunity to pick up and move somewhere else. Not all borders are as porous as ours.

[Scott Patterson]

Funny how some humans insist on living where there is no water or food.......MGC

No more funny how some humans insist on living in the hurricane belt.....

If we did have glaciers in Southern Africa and the Middle East, I'll bet they'd have more drinking water.

Actually the Middle East has many glaciers, especially in Iran and Turkey. Some geographers also consider Afganistan and Pakistan in the Middle East as well, both of which have large glaciers. In fact the ones in Pakistan are some of the largest or even possibly the largest in the world in the mid latitudes.

Anyway, here's a photo of Alum Kuh in Iran:



Ararat in Turkey:



Noshaq in Afganistan:



Gasherbrum II in Pakistan:

The glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland, those which make up about a hundred times more ice then all the other small land glaciers put together are growing.

False. Some glaciers in Antartica are growing, but the ones in Greenland (except for in the Kangerdlugssuaq area) are melting at a rapid rate. Do you have a source for your claim?

Glaciers are growing my friends.

Very few and only one area in the United States-namely Mount Shasta which has some advancing. All others in the US and the vast majority around the world are shrinking. Since you mention the Cascades, except of Mount Shasta, all are rapidly retreating. The last time they were advancing was a short time up to 1975.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Funny how some humans insist on living where there is no water or food.......MGC

No more funny how some humans insist on living in the hurricane belt.....

If we did have glaciers in Southern Africa and the Middle East, I'll bet they'd have more drinking water.

Actually the Middle East has many glaciers, especially in Iran and Turkey. Some geographers also consider Afganistan and Pakistan in the Middle East as well, both of which have large glaciers. In fact the ones in Pakistan are some of the largest or even possibly the largest in the world in the mid latitudes.

Anyway, here's a photo of Alum Kuh in Iran:



Ararat in Turkey:



Noshaq in Afganistan:



Gasherbrum II in Pakistan:

The glaciers of Antarctica and Greenland, those which make up about a hundred times more ice then all the other small land glaciers put together are growing.

False. Some glaciers in Antartica are growing, but the ones in Greenland (except for in the Kangerdlugssuaq area) are melting at a rapid rate. Do you have a source for your claim?

Glaciers are growing my friends.

Very few and only one area in the United States-namely Mount Shasta which has some advancing. All others in the US and the vast majority around the world are shrinking. Since you mention the Cascades, except of Mount Shasta, all are rapidly retreating. The last time they were advancing was a short time up to 1975.

Also Mount St Helens glaciers are also growing with many of the Casecade Mountain glaciers, will likely start to grow if current increases in snowfall keeps up from winter to winter. Also the Eastern Antarctica ice sheet makes up near 70+ percent of the overall ice sheets of Antarctica. So overall they are growing when you aveage it all out. Yes it could be because of the increasing amount of moisture a 'warmer world' would help push into the Atmosphere. So its really not against global warming that some glaciers will grow because of it.

I think the serious discussion, yes should still be on the data of is global warming occuring or not, of coarse. But we also have to have serious discussions with the fact that our economy may not be able to survive the shift easly. Just look at the effects of corn based fuels already taken effect with food riots, and you can see that we maybe in big trouble if we push it to fast and far. I believe we must take a step back and think about it.

[Scott Patterson]

Also Mount St Helens glaciers

The only glacier on Mount Saint Helens is the Crater Glacier which has formed since the mountain committed suicide in May 1980 and blew away all it's ice.

are also growing with many of the Casecade Mountain glaciers

OK, which ones? Just curious, not aruguing. I'm actually from Washington and am an avid mountaineer, so I am curious as to where the many glaciers in the Cascades are growing. Here are photos of the Whitechuck Glacier taken from the same place:

1973:



2006:

will likely start to grow if current increases in snowfall keeps up from winter to winter.

If current increases in snowfall keeps up from winter to winter our your words. That's a big if and has not been happening on a consistant basis. You can't base that statement on one year only. Let's observe the snowfall records for Mount Rainier for example. This year may have been above normal, but let's look at the history in the NWS database.

2006-2007: Snowfall was much below normal.
2005-2006: Snowfall was slightly above normal.
2004-2005: Snowfall was much below normal.
2003-2004: Snowfall was slightly below normal.

What makes you think snowfall is increasing? I'm just curious. The only really big snow years in the past few decades were in 1998-1999 and 2001-2002.

Also the Eastern Antarctica ice sheet makes up near 70+ percent of the overall ice sheets of Antarctica.

Part of it is growing.

So its really not against global warming that some glaciers will grow because of it.

Yes, true.

Anyway, I just mentioned the above because I spend so much time climbing on the mountains and on the glaciers and can see much change. It's weird when the map from teh 1970's or 1980's says you're standing on a glacier when it's completely gone.

Of course big volcanic eruptions could change that and definately send the earth cooling as can mother nature as well.

But we also have to have serious discussions with the fact that our economy may not be able to survive the shift easly. Just look at the effects of corn based fuels already taken effect with food riots, and you can see that we maybe in big trouble if we push it to fast and far. I believe we must take a step back and think about it.

It also depends on where you live. I live in Colorado. Other than possibly shortening the ski season, warming would effect me much (in fact I live in the cold part of Colorado and we often have the nations low temperature, warming here might be benificial). If I lived in a low nation that could be completely wiped out if sea level rose, there is even more at stake than the economy. A good example is Maldives, which consist of 250+ inhabited islands. Just an 8" rise in sea level is causing problems already. There is no high ground and in fact the highest point in the country is only eight feet. They are quite worried.

I've also visited much of the Pacific and it's islands. The people are very concerned there too.

Anyway, I didn't mean to make this a political post though. In fact with all the traveling I've done, my own carbon footprint is pretty big even though I live in an efficient house and always ride my bike to work unless it's below -15F. I'm sure there is a shrinking glacier somewhere out there with my name on it.

[Meso]

Canadian ice shelf break

[liveweatherman]

Soon polar bears and penguins will no longer have homes.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Soon polar bears and penguins will no longer have homes.

Nice appeal to emotion there. That is a big part of the problem I have with the people who want to shut down the economies of the US and other Western capitalist societies, over something that could be happening due to human influence, or could be part of a natural cycle that will reverse, or a combination of the two.

BTW, it appears hwoever will be the next President is a believer in AGW, and will indeed take steps to slow or reverse the growth in an already weak economy in the name of 'climate change'.

I suspect many of the most strident proponents of dismantling capitalism in the name of 'climate change' will oppose things like nuclear power and wind farms that would allow this country to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions without causing a serious shock to the economy.

Don't look for the Peoples Republic of China to do a thing but grow more powerful compared to the US both economically and politically. I suspect the Russians and the Indians won't decide to cripple their economies either.

[x-y-no]

Soon polar bears and penguins will no longer have homes.

Penguins range purely in the southern hemisphere. They're far less likely to lose habitat that the Polar Bears are.

[HURAKAN]

I saw today a program about Alaska in the Science Channel, I believe, and they said that 95% of all the glaciers in the state are diminishing. Hubbard Glacier is one of the few that is still increasing and it's due to the topography of the region.

[Ed Mahmoud]

I must avoid the temptation to sound remotely political on what has become a political issue. Been warned, and really don't want to get banned.


So, Dr. Joe D'Aleo, head Intellicast guru, on the ice caps

In early May, a paper appeared in Nature that created quite stir in the media by showing how by including long term ocean cycles in models the recent global cooling or at least lack of warming may continue to 2020. The same week, a story by NASA’s Earth Observatory reported on the flip of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool mode. “This multi-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation ‘cool’ trend can intensify La Niña or diminish El Niño impacts around the Pacific basin,” said Bill Patzert, an oceanographer and climatologist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. “The persistence of this large-scale pattern tells us there is much more than an isolated La Niña occurring in the Pacific Ocean.”



You heard these first here on Intellicast (in fact even in the prior incarnation of Dr. Dewpoint, we often talked about the importance of these ocean cycles in climate cycles). This week we will talk about temperatures and ice in Greenland and the Arctic, topics sure to dominate the news this summer. Already recent media stories have some scientists predicting another big melt this summer. We will show how that is not at all unprecedented (happens predictably every 60 years or so) and is in fact entirely natural.

Almost certainly not peer reviewed. It is on the Intellicast site, and the only peer reviewed publications I read regularly are from the SPE, chiefly 'The Journal of Petroleum Technology'. I'll occasionally browse the peer reviewed journal of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, but a lot of that goes way over my head. Because I'm not a geologist, although I did take about 25 hours of geology in college.

I'd imagine a peer reviewed climatology journal would be even more over my head.


But, at least one genuine doctor who thinks the Arctic ice situation isn't a departure from the normal.

[x-y-no]

Just a minor correction: Joe D'Aleo did not complete his doctorate, although he studied for one at NYU. He has a BS and MS in meteorology as well as over three decades experience working as a professional meteorologist.

I skimmed through the article and there doesn't seem to be anything new, but I'll give it a more thorough read when I have some time.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Just a minor correction: Joe D'Aleo did not complete his doctorate, although he studied for one at NYU. He has a BS and MS in meteorology as well as over three decades experience working as a professional meteorologist.

I skimmed through the article and there doesn't seem to be anything new, but I'll give it a more thorough read when I have some time.

But you have to like its all science and no politics. I'm trying with less than two weeks to Atlantic season to be on my best behavior.

[x-y-no]

But you have to like its all science and no politics. I'm trying with less than two weeks to Atlantic season to be on my best behavior.

Absolutely. Please understand I do enjoy discussions of the science, including especially discussing weaknesses and areas of uncertainty. I sincerely hope you have not been dissuaded from posting on this topic. That is absolutely not my desire. All I'm asking for is adherence to the rules of the board.

And please do let me know if you think I'm crossing the line at some point - I don't claim to be perfect.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Found these at a political website, but I only included what appears to be links/petitions involving actual science/scientists.


While many scientists agree its is real, I'd suggest checking your favorite internet search engine for "Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine’s Petition Project of 2001".

Anyway, I suspect the pro-AGW climatologists probably still out-number the unconvinced, but there are specialists in the field not convinced.


Also, see http://petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Home_Page.html

Outline of specialties, with more specific breakdown of atmospheric and Earth sciences.

Qualifications of Signers

Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields. The petition has been circulated only in the United States.

The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,962 MS; 2,238 MD and DVM; and 12,851 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.

All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.

The Petition Project classifies petition signers on the basis of their formal academic training, as summarized below. Scientists often pursue specialized fields of endeavor that are different from their formal education, but their underlying training can be applied to any scientific field in which they become interested.

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 905 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,690 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,801 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,923 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,062 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,994 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (63)
III) Geology (1,600)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

[Ed Mahmoud]

Hmmm, I will say, astronomy doesn't seem to be primarily an atmospheric science.

They do seem to have an agenda, but they have some interesting graphs, trend analysis and discussion with references, so I'm not dismissing it out of hand.

[x-y-no]

The Oregon petition was a statement of opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. There are many (including myself) who are firmly convinced of AGW and the need for affirmative policy to mitigate its effects who nonetheless found Kyoto inadequate and/or badly structured.

What the Oregon Petition is not is a declaration that AGW isn't real or isn't serious. It reads in full

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

(emphasis mine)

So willingness to sign this hinges on one's interpretation of "catastrophic heating" and "disruption." I could easily see an interpretation that requires something far more radical (runaway greenhouse effect, for example) to satisfy these loaded terms. So it may well be that many signed this out of support for the first paragraph, not out o support for the idea that AGW isn't serious.

Finally I'd note that we're not told what has been done to verify the signatures. But even if they're accepted as legitimate, only 12% are in fields related to "Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment" and a mere 40 out of 31,000 are climatologists.