Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-na ... .Glaciers/

Mount Shasta glaciers growing, despite warming

A truck moves past Mt. Shasta, background, on Highway 97 near Weed, Calif., Thursday, June...

Tue Jul 8, 6:24 PM EDT
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 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. 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 270 miles 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 1.8 degree Fahrenheit 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 500 miles 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 U.S. 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.

Although Mount Shasta's glaciers are growing, researchers say the 4.7 billion cubic feet of ice on its flanks could be gone by 2100. For the glaciers to remain their current size, Shasta would have to receive 20 percent more snowfall for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, Tulaczyk said.

The Shasta glaciers have been advancing since the end of a drought in the early 20th century. The mountain's smallest glaciers — named Konwakiton, Watkins and Mud Creek — have more than doubled in length since 1950.

Hikers seeking to cross Shasta's glaciers — marked with crevasses as deep as 100 feet — say they are much larger than the boundaries drawn on geological maps.

"I noticed I was traveling down farther than the maps were showing it," said Eric White, a U.S. Forest Service ranger who has climbed Shasta for 23 years.

Four glaciers at Washington's Mount Rainier are staying about the same size. Those glaciers — shielded from the sun on the mountain's north and east sides — have received just enough snow to keep them from shrinking.

The added ice on Mount Shasta might be good for the state's water supplies. Hydrologists believe the glaciers feed springs and aquifers, though they say it's unclear precisely how the water travels underground.

Until recently, the same phenomenon that is benefiting Shasta's glaciers was feeding glacier growth in southern Norway and Sweden, the New Zealand Alps and northern Pakistan, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

In each area, scientists say, more snowfall temporarily offset warming temperatures in the 1990s and early 2000s. But rising temperatures since then have begun to shrink the ice.

Climate change is causing roughly 90 percent of the world's mountain glaciers to shrink, said Thompson, the Ohio State glacier expert.

"Best that we keep our eye on the big picture," Thompson said in an e-mail about Shasta's unique position. "The picture points unfortunately (to) massive loss of ice on land, which has huge implications for future sea level rise."

Global forecasts show temperatures warming from 2 degrees to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century if no major efforts are undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At that rate, California's snowpack and its remaining glaciers are among the most vulnerable of its natural resources.

Even without global warming, another threat to Shasta's glaciers could come far more quickly. A volcanic eruption could melt them, creating mud flows that could bury the surrounding small communities.

Over the last 4,000 years, Shasta has erupted about every 250 to 300 years, and did so most recently about 200 years ago, said William Hirt, a geology instructor at the College of the Siskiyous.

___

On the Net:

Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/shastatrinity/r ... ndex.shtml

(This version corrects that Shasta is at the southern end of the Cascade Range but not the range's southernmost volcano.)

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

I'm sure the IPCC has an explanation for this. Oh wait, nevermind, they already covered themselves by saying global warming is taking a 10 year break. LOL

[Xatrei]

You'll find the explanation in the fucking article. Try reading it, dipshit.

[Animale]

Actually, in one of the chapters I mentioned (chapter 10), it discusses changes in rainfall in many parts of the world. It just so happens that northern California (where Mt. Shasta is) has increased rainfall due to higher ocean temperatures. A related phenomena is seen in the recent flooding in the midwest. Increased rainfall = more snow at higher elevations = more glaciers. This is in contrast to Africa and other glaciers that are further inland, which have LOWER rainfall due to the climate changes measured and described by the IPCC. Of course, you haven't bothered to read and/or skim the reports... so you are a dipshit.

Animale

[Xatrei]

Actually, in one of the chapters I mentioned (chapter 10), it discusses changes in rainfall in many parts of the world. It just so happens that northern California (where Mt. Shasta is) has increased rainfall due to higher ocean temperatures. A related phenomena is seen in the recent flooding in the midwest. Increased rainfall = more snow at higher elevations = more glaciers. This is in contrast to Africa and other glaciers that are further inland, which have LOWER rainfall due to the climate changes measured and described by the IPCC. Of course, you haven't bothered to read and/or skim the reports... so you are a dipshit.

Animale

He couldn't bother to read the 900 word, dumbed down Associated Press article that he quoted. If he ever got through the first page of the IPCC's Executive Summary, I'd be impressed.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Environerds, please go download and watch Bullshit season 6 episode 6. Thanks. It's not gospel, but it's a wonderful shot of logic and common sense.

[Canelek]

I am so going to run you down with a Smartcar whilst chucking Birkenstocks and bongos at you.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

I am so going to run you down with a Smartcar whilst chucking Birkenstocks and bongos at you.

rofl....whatever makes you FEEL BETTER.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

http://www.generationim.com/

Wow. Holy shit. I mean, I knew it was bogus just on the face of it, common sense said so, but wow. If you don't know about the company linked above. You really need to humble yourself and watch the episode I suggested you watch.

[Canelek]

I am so going to run you down with a Smartcar whilst chucking Birkenstocks and bongos at you.

rofl....whatever makes you FEEL BETTER.

Come to think of it, I don't think I would feel better driving one of those lollipop golfcarts. Not even room for clubs...

And I don't have any sandals. Apparently my intimidation plans have been thwarted. =/

[Xatrei]

I watched their Green is Bullshit episode last week. They're hardcore libertarians, so no great surprise where they come down on the issue. I love P&T because they're great entertainers, but politically and philosophically, they're as fucked up as any other nutty libertarian/objectivist retard. They can be as wrong as anyone else, and on this subject they are. Nothing in their little comedy show is any kind of smoking gun for the climate change denying segment of society to latch on to. Gore's group, and its objectives are rather well known already. To this, and to you I say "*yawn*"

Good night. I hope you don't wake up in the morning.

[Arborealus]

The headline was a little misleading, as the article even points out that the temperatures should start rising again in 2015. I was going to highlight bits of the article, but I felt that the whole thing made more sense together. What I wonder most about is, why wouldn't the IPCC report include patterns such as the Gulf Stream and El Nino cycles mentioned in this article?

I know it was silly, but I was not trying to ask in a sarcastic way. If these reports are the reference to use in judging what is happening to the world we live in, how did it not factor things like those two specific patterns in? What else was left out? Were variances allowed to account for them? What about volcanic activity? Was it included or excluded? Note again that the article I quoted even states that it is not disproving what was done before, but it was delaying the increase in temperatures by around 7 years.

It's a new model...you don't include new models in making conservative estimates...The data probably wouldn't have been available to consider in generating the IPCC and even if it were the model needs thorough peer review which of course is why you publish it ...

Publication in a journal doesn't imply "truth" it gets it out there so the scientists can test it on a broader scale.

[Midnyte_Ragebringer]

Publication in a journal doesn't imply "truth" it gets it out there so the scientists can test it on a broader scale.

Animale would disagree with you on that one. Publication means absolute truth to him.

[Arborealus]

Publication in a journal doesn't imply "truth" it gets it out there so the scientists can test it on a broader scale.

Animale would disagree with you on that one. Publication means absolute truth to him.

Of course he wouldn't...He understands probability mechanics, variability and sampling error...

[Winnow]

Scientists have always been pawns of the military.

-David Marcus, Kirk's illigit son, Star Trek II (also Slash from Square Pegs)

[Arborealus]

I am so going to run you down with a Smartcar whilst chucking Birkenstocks and bongos at you.

rofl....whatever makes you FEEL BETTER.

Come to think of it, I don't think I would feel better driving one of those lollipop golfcarts. Not even room for clubs...

And I don't have any sandals. Apparently my intimidation plans have been thwarted. =/

I have a couple old pairs of Birkies you can borrow Leezard

[Winnow]

Interesting!

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade

Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'

By Lewis Page

Posted in Science, 14th June 2011 17:00 GMT

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.
Average magnetic field strength in sunspot umbras has been steadily declining for over a decade. The trend includes sunspots from Cycles 22, 23, and (the current cycle) 24. Credit: NSO/AAS

Ice skating on the Thames by 2025?

The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.

The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.

This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.

As NASA notes [1]:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."

Didn't want to start a new thread. This is good news for THO fans.

[Spang]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Sunspot cycles -- those 11-year patterns when dark dots appear on the solar surface -- may be delayed or even go into "hibernation" for a while, a U.S. scientist said on Wednesday.

But contrary to some media reports, this does not mean a new Ice Age is coming, Frank Hill of the National Solar Observatory said in a telephone interview.

"We have not predicted a Little Ice Age," Hill said, speaking from an astronomical meeting in New Mexico. "We have predicted something going on with the Sun."

The Source

[Boogahz]

damn, I was counting on some relief from this damned weather. way to burst my bubble Spang!



My non-scientific guess is that the cycles just aren't as "predictable" as previously assumed.

[Spang]

damn, I was counting on some relief from this damned weather.

Weather can change in an instant. Climate change has nothing to do with that.

[Boogahz]

damn, I was counting on some relief from this damned weather.

Weather can change in an instant. Climate change has nothing to do with that.

but Winnow promised a mini-Ice Age!

[Aabidano]

but Winnow promised a mini-Ice Age!

Never trust a man with tassles on his shoes.