California glaciers thriving

[Praxius]

http://www.thechronicleherald.ca/World/1066512.html

MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. — Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta’s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only long-established glaciers in the lower 48 states that are growing.

Reaching more than 4,200 metres above sea level, Mount Shasta is one of the state’s tallest peaks, dominating the landscape of high plains and conifer forests in far Northern California. Nearby Indian tribes referred to its glaciers as the footsteps made by the creator when he descended to Earth. Hikers flock to Shasta every summer to scale them.

With glaciers retreating in the Sierra Nevada, the Rocky Mountains and elsewhere in the Cascades, those on Mount Shasta — a volcanic peak at the southern end of the Cascade range — are actually benefiting from changing weather patterns over the Pacific Ocean.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta’s glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."

Climate change has cut the number of glaciers at Montana’s Glacier National Park from 150 to 26 since 1850, and some scientists project there will be none left within a generation. Lonnie Thompson, a glacier expert at Ohio State University, has projected the storied snows at Africa’s Mount Kilimanjaro might disappear by 2015.

But for Shasta, about 450 kilometres north of San Francisco, scientists say a warming Pacific Ocean means more moist air. On the mountain, precipitation falls as snow, adding to the glaciers enough to overcome a one-degree Celsius rise in temperature in the last century, scientists say.

"It’s a bit of an anomaly that they are growing, but it’s not to be unexpected," said Ed Josberger, a glaciologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash.

By comparison, the glaciers in the Sierra Nevada, more than 800 kilometres south of Mount Shasta, are exposed to warmer summer temperatures and are retreating.

The Sierra’s 498 ice formations — glaciers and ice fields — have shrunk by about half their size over the past 100 years, said Andrew Fountain, a geology professor at Portland State University. He inventoried glaciers in the contiguous United States as part of a federal initiative.

He said Shasta’s seven glaciers are the only ones scientists have identified as getting larger, with the exception of a small glacier in the shaded crater of Washington state’s Mount St. Helens. It formed after the 1980 eruption blasted away slightly more than half the mountain’s ice, and scientists believe it will not grow in area once it stretches outside the shade of the crater.

Glaciologists say most glaciers in Alaska and Canada are retreating, too, but there are too many to study them all.

 

[Walter]

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team studying Shasta’s glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from the warming ocean."
Stupid Slawek, the oceans are not warming.
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat

by Richard Harris
Listen Now [3 min 57 sec] add to playlist
March 19, 2008 · Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years.

 

[Tonington]

I wouldn't call him stupid Walter. The ARGO network had a systemic bias which the team who runs ARGO is fixing. In 2006 they found that the pressure switches in the buoys were in error, and they switched to a new system of observing data. Much like the change in the US at NASA, that affected the US temperature data. The pressure switch on the other hand introduced a curious bias. The temperatures were being reported for the incorrect depths.

It was curious because, sea level is still rising, and the large majority of that is due to thermal expansion. Unless a hell of a lot of glaciers are melting, like all of them, and much much larger in magnitude, it wouldn't make sense. That's how they found the bias in the buoys.

Yah, stupid Slawek :roll:

 

[mabudon]

Ahh walter, you must be fun at parties- it's always nice to have one person who makes everyone else look halfway decent- your posts are like a collection of the absolute WORST of the Toronto Sun headlines, no substance and pretty much no style either

Good post as always tonnington, nice to know there's folks still paying attention...

I find it funny when something like this article comes up and folks cite it as proof that all is well despite the fact that the seming anomaly is actualy explained in the ARTICLE ITSELF as being a result of climate change, human influenced or not

I actually saw an article- not sure if it's posted anywhere here- about how "global disruption" was a much more accurate term as to what is happening on our planet, and I tend to agree, there is NO way the asshats can argue against the obvious fact that SOMETHING is afoot- tho I bet ol walt will give it his kindergarten copy and paste try

 

[Praxius]

I actually saw an article- not sure if it's posted anywhere here- about how "global disruption" was a much more accurate term as to what is happening on our planet, and I tend to agree, there is NO way the asshats can argue against the obvious fact that SOMETHING is afoot- tho I bet ol walt will give it his kindergarten copy and paste try

See, that's why I like to stick to the term "Climate Change" because it's very much the same meaning as "Global Disruption"

The majority of us do understand and see that something is going on, but one can not claim it is "Global Warming" because what happens if and when it starts to cool down suddenly for whatever reason? Are we going to still use "Global Warming" as the term or shall we switch to "Global Cooling?"

I mean, some places are being affected by the changing climates more then others, while other areas haven't really had that much noticable change. Some places are warming, while other places are cooling, such as the above explination..... when something cools, shall we still call it "Global Warming?" If it's going to remain in this new changed environment, doesn't that mean it has changed? Therefore, if the Climate has changed in an area of the planet..... wouldn't one call it "Climate Change?" ~ It did change afterall.... be that for the better or for the worse.

If you don't want a paticular area of the planet to change into what it's starting to change into, then we can focus attention there and try and "Change it Back" if possible, or at least reduce the pollution, etc. in that area to make sure the change isn't as drastic.

To me, Global Warming only seems to focus on Pollution and Man Made effects on our planet, and the term itself make it sound like the entire planet.... the Globe.... is Warming overall and they based their theories all around the concept of "Warming" that there is this inpending doom coming our way.

The term itself creates division in trying to find a solution, because many don't believe the theory based on how it is presented..... however if you present it as "Climate Change" which focuses on not just Man made influences, but other known factors out of our control, it will be far more easier to get people on board with the concept and to find a solution to the problem much sooner.

To me, the term "Global Warming" is a lie fed to the public in a manner to influence fear in the unknown... and many others see it that way.... but when you refer to it as "Climate Change" it makes more sense based on the evidence, and you will get the same outcome, if not better, when it comes to getting people involved, then you would by continually using the term "Global Warming"

As a person who works in Advertisment and Marketing, I know it sounds like a trival thing to argue about the term Global Warming, Climate Change, or your term Global Disruption to be used when addressing the current problems, but it's the small little things like that that get people on board with what you're trying to sell.

If it doesn't make sense or doesn't relate to them directly, they're not going to buy it.

Would you still eat at MacDonald's if it was called MacDiddles? If it was called MacDiddles, then chances are, many wouldn't go because of how it sounds in their head.

The point I'm trying to make is that the term Climate Change covers everything Global Warming stands for, and then some..... it's the reference to the Climates Changing, be that by warming or cooling.... be that by man or by natual occurances.

Once you get everybody on board as to what it actually is, then you can start collectively finding a solution to it. Right now we have a division on what the problem actually is, therefore you only have at best, half of the people trying to find a solution.

 

[jimmoyer]

Good points, Praxius.

Global Disruption is a better phrase.

I think this issue is getting a good vetting.

 

[#juan]

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. — Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over
the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta's
flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the
continental U.S. that are growing.

Reaching more than 14,000 feet above sea level, Mount Shasta is one of
the state's tallest peaks, dominating the landscape of high plains and
conifer forests in far Northern California.



With glaciers retreating in the Sierra Nevada, the Rocky Mountains and
elsewhere in the Cascades, Mount Shasta — the southernmost volcano in
the Cascade range — is actually benefiting from changing weather
patterns over the Pacific Ocean.

"When people look at glaciers around the world, the majority of them
are shrinking," said Slawek Tulaczyk, an assistant professor of earth
sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who led a team
studying Shasta's glaciers. "These glaciers seem to be benefiting from
the warming ocean."

Some glaciers are moving, the tongues are not retreating but the
ice mass is decreasing.

So the term "growing" can be ambiguous.

 

[Tonington]

The term itself creates division in trying to find a solution, because many don't believe the theory based on how it is presented..... however if you present it as "Climate Change" which focuses on not just Man made influences, but other known factors out of our control, it will be far more easier to get people on board with the concept and to find a solution to the problem much sooner.

Praxius, only in the media community does it matter if it's called global warming, or climate change, or climate disruption. Specifically you're talking about anthropogenic global warming. All global warming means is the average temperature on Earth is increasing, or put in better terms, the amount of radiation that reflects back to space is decreasing. That can happen in any number of ways, and so scientists study all of those different mechanisms. That our fingerprint is so up front, well that's where the anthropogenic comes from.

 

[darkbeaver]

Good points, Praxius.

Global Disruption is a better phrase.

I think this issue is getting a good vetting.

Global Disruption, I like it too. I'm tired of hearing about global warming. Why can't we all just recycle our bread bags and get the job done, soon as the wars over.