A campaign has been running in the US media, claiming that glaciers are growing and celebrating the role of CO2 in the environmental cycle. Advertisements, produced by the 'Competitive Enterprise Institute', aired in 14 U.S. cities and focussed on debunking the Environmentalist 'myth'...
The CEI, which calls itself "a non-profit, non-partisan research and advocacy institute", reassures us that energy use is good for us and our children - one of its financial backers is Exonmobil!
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I guess in their defense, global warming is a complex issue and the worlds weather is a system where one change always results in something else happening and it is pretty hard to predict etc. so one needs to keep an open mind ...
However ... after seeing a colleagues photos of some glaciers in Austria compared with those his father took just 10 years earlier, I would say these folks have a serious problem with their eyesight if they cannot see the current and very recent and dramatic evidence - no measurements needed!
Talking about 'good' propaganda campaigns, take a look at http://www.idont.com for a good laugh. Especially the posters under the 'materials' are a real hoot. Cannot see Apple being too happy with a campaign like this!
As I recall there are indeed places where the glaciers are growing. The explanation is simply that if the glacier is at high altitude, or in an area where average temperatures are still low enough, then the increase in precipitation due to global warming means that the glacier gets more snow and hence gets fatter. No rocket science there.
In these regions there is simply no doubt that the glaciers are disappearing. The one on the Zugspitze barely deserves to be called a glacier anymore. It's just a postage stamp of snow that lasts through the summer these days. The shrinkage in the last twenty years since I started going there has been dramatic
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Likewise I remember the Eiger Glacier being a lot lower on the slopes (in fact when the Jungfrau railway was built it actually came down to the Eigergletscher station) Anyone that tells you that the majority of glaciers are growing is a liar. I also suspect that the eskimos might like to say a few words to those so called experts as might the people in places like the Maldives
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Arno, yes, melted !
After all it is free
After all it is free
I suggest we offer to move the CEI's office, rent free to some low-lying coastal location, such as the Thames Flood Barrier - that way they can prove their glacial accumulation theories by not drowning.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
It's also worth knowing that the author of at least one paper on glaciers has stated that the advert misrepresents his work.
NB the link doesn't seem to working at the moment, but the text of his statement can be found here.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
The Competitive Enterprise Institute obviously has that name, because its aim is keep the ENTERPRISES which sponsor it financially COMPETITIVE - in the short term at least. (I noticed Ford Motors and Texaco are also listed as sponsors...)
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
I haven't got all of this working, but for those with GoogleEarth who are interested, it looks interesting.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Come on Shanky, can't you tell us the answer in one line of English withouit doing all this work?
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
saikee, AFAIA pretty much all except a few Norwegian and parts of the Antarctic, which are apparently getting more precipitation, are shrinking. Is that good enough?
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
skanky, saikee, Fox and Franz Josef in New Zealand appear currently to be advancing - by up to 2m per day. These are abnornal glaciers though as they are very steep and come down to nearly sea level through the forest, so are incredibly a) fast moving and b) dependent on recent years' snowfall. They seem to have been receeding through most of the 20th century, advanced from 1984-1998, receded 1999-2003 and are now advancing again. IIRC it takes about 50 years for ice to get from the top to the bottom - measured by a recognisable body of a climber who disappeared right near the top just post WWII being disgorged from the end in the early 90s.
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
GrahamN, advancing is not necessarily the same as growing (mass-wise). (Some of) The glaciers on the Greenland ice sheet are thought to be moving faster due to increased lubrication from meltwater draining through to the underside. However this causes a thinning of the glacier, so though the nose of the glacier may push forward, the mass of the glacier is reduced. In the case of the Greenland glaciers though, as they push into the water, they do not seem to stretch as much as they can only push offshore a limited amount.
As for the NZ glaciers I that's interesting. Do you have a link?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
skanky, yes, that lubrication effect struck me as a possible reason for advancing during a warming phase. A quick Google (actually Yahoo) brought up several politically motivated pieces such as this one, but [url=http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=\ForeignBureaus\archive0502\FOR20050216a.html]this one[/url] seems pretty neutral and informative. When I visited there it was in the middle of a receding phase...and that bit about it having receded through the 20th cent was a memory of what the local rangers told me then, along with pictures since about 1860 in the Vistor Centre of its recession.
(Edited to tidy up links)
Last edited by Poster: A snowHead on Tue 6-06-06 17:38; edited 1 time in total
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Since last week, the European Commission is running a big campaign on individuals' actions and climate change in all 25 EU Member States. Check www.climatechange.eu.com.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
GrahamN, your links seem to have got a bit muddled, but I'm assuming the TCS article is the "political" one and the CNS one the more "neutral" one. Certainly in it's discussion of the specific glacier it is.
Here's an explanation of the behaviour of the two gleciers from the NIWA (more here: http://www.picosearch.com/cgi-bin/ts.pl - NB it seems the dates on those articles are the dates they were probably uploaded, the dates at the links are different). Growth/reduction seems to be cyclical. Interestingly, Salinger wrote a presentation (PDF) that shows pictures of what looks to me to be the glacier, but doesn't specifically refer to it. He does discuss the expectations of higher precipitation in the western sides which would be expected to cause the glacier to grow - esp. if it is more sensitive to precipitation amounts. There may be more on this glacier, but I've spent too long as it is and I really ought to get some work done.
Just quickly though, an indication of the reduction in glaciers around the globe is shown by the IPCC and a discussion is referrenced from here. The problem with picking one or two glaciers is that you fall into the trap of regional climate effects, but if you pick a wide distribution then you see a more global trend (if one exists). The twenty in the IPCC could be consiered too few (though it is a summary), but the WGMS expands that data somewhat. As is often repeated, these are merely another datapoint rather than conclusive proof on their own.
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
