Global Cooling:Alaskan Glaciers Grow For First Time In 250 Years

reply to post by Erasurehead


But if you look at your rates of warming, there is no precedent for this, combined with warming gases, scientific models pointing out that these gases explain the warming. Your avatar is John McCain, if he is elected he is committed to Carbon Cuts, but not as much as Obama who is also investing in solutions. Your days of the global warming being an oil company exposed 'myth,' have well and truly crumbled.

How about this for something off the wall.

Greenland's ice sheets recede - while Alaska's seem to be growing Could this be the start of a massive shift in the poles a-la the Flem-Ath's theory that every so often the "skin" of the earth moves round due to weight of, or - and here I am hypothesizing, the lack of weight of the ice sheets.

Just a though that occurred to me reading this thread - and the many others on this fine site.

Hmmm... there's less hot air in Alaska this summer? Maybe they're missing a politician?

Sorry... Just sayin... In case no one else did.

reply to post by Normski


Its possible.
There has been recent talk of the magnetic poles flipping.

Every so often, Earth's magnetic field flips on its head, turning the magnetic North Pole into the South Pole and vice versa.

It last happened 780,000 years ago, and is predicted to occur again in about 1,500 years ... maybe.

The overall frequency is hard to predict — there was one period in Earth's history when the field didn't reverse for 30 million years.

Why these flip-flops happen at all is a great riddle, but a new hypothesis on the origins of the magnetic field could shed light on the reason.

www.foxnews.com...

reply to post by vox2442

Three degrees does make some difference; I can't deny that. But the amount of precipitation depends not just on the temperature of the air, but rather on the amount of water vapor in that air that cannot remain when the temperature drops. To quote your chart, if the air temperature is 50°C at 70% humidity and a storm blows up, you will not receive 58.1 grams per cubic meter of precipitation. Instead, should the temperature drop to, say, 40°C, you will receive 7 grams per cubic meter (58.1 - 51.1, the amount of moisture for 40° air at 100% humidity). On the other hand, if you started with 45°C air at 90% humidity (58.9 grams/meter of water content), you would receive 7.8 grams per cubic meter, more than the 50°C air at a temperature of 5°C less, and a weaker storm (5°C temperature drop as opposed to 10°C).

It's the difference in the amount of water previously held as compared to the amount of water that the air at its new temperature can hold that determine the amount of precipitation.

Any record snowfalls would be the result of this equation, whether it is higher temperatures, or, as I consider more likely, higher differences in air temperature on a more frequent basis with higher initial humidity. Any glacial accumulation would be the result of higher snowfall amounts, reduced surface melting between snowfalls, or a combination of both.

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I don't think you understood the information in my post.

Please review this article: en.wikipedia.org...




[edit on 19-10-2008 by vox2442]

reply to post by vox2442

That link gives the following information:

Very informative.

OK, I know which page you meant. But rather than just post a page with a definition of precipitation, how about telling me what you disagree with in my post? I think that would more aid the debate than just typing in a link to try and say I don't know what I am talking about.

I agree that warmer air is capable of holding more moisture than cold air. That's simple physics. My only point is that the possible moisture content is not the only force that affects precipitation, and compared to the other variables that affect precipitation amounts, a 3°C temperature rise is minor. Do you disagree with that? If so, what are the physics upon which you base this disagreement?

TheRedneck

Talk about giving the alarmist a run for their money. Yes, it is conveniently called "Climate Change" now. Right, that still means CO2 is deadly, let's tax breathing, carbon credit scam and all that good stuff.

As always, keep up the good work redneck, you never fail to impress.

Originally posted by vegno
Talk about giving the alarmist a run for their money. Yes, it is conveniently called "Climate Change" now. Right, that still means CO2 is deadly, let's tax breathing, carbon credit scam and all that good stuff.

As always, keep up the good work redneck, you never fail to impress.

Yeah this carbon tax is scary. Putting families on a limit and coming every week to check them? What happens if we go over the limit? Are we going to be thrown into the Fema camps? All because of Gore's recent attachment to nature....
-Ign0ranT

There is a paper, which unfortunately has a price tag of $42.00, that proposes to explain the variability of ice on and around Greenland from 14oo to 1980.
I am posting the abstract, which does reveal some factors of interest:

This paper presents a review of the time period A.D. 1400-1980 based on Greenland ice cores from the central west Greenland averaged record, and from winter and summer seasonal isotopic records from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2). This time period includes the so-called "Little Ice Age". The concept of the "Little Ice Age" has evolved from the idea of a simple, centuries-long period of lower temperatures to a more complex view of temporal and spatial climatic variability. In the central Greenland ice core isotopic signals, the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries show multi-decadal excursions above and below the mean reference. The sixteenth and mid-eighteenth to mid-nineteenth centuries are notable for decade-to-decade swings (high-low) in the isotopic signal, while multi-decadal low excursions dominate the seventeenth century. The "subdued" nature of the "Little Ice Age" isotopic signal in central Greenland is probably influenced by the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which presents opposing temperature excursions between west Greenland and northern Europe. Changes in the prevailing atmospheric circulation (Iceland Low) can explain some of the spatial and temporal variability between the central Greenland isotopic records and Iceland temperature.

source:www.ingentaconnect.com...

Furthermore, this article discusses the virtually ice-free environment of Greenland and the surrounding sea prior to the early 1400's:

Sea ice was a key factor in the development of the Viking immigration into Greenland and the ultimate demise of their settlements. The Vikings sailed from Iceland and first settled in Greenland in 981. They developed pasture land and farms on the western Greenland coast. However, in the harsh environment, they were not self-sufficient and required supplies, which were transported from Norway and Iceland across the sea. This was a relatively warm period of history, and sea ice was uncommon in the trade route between Greenland and Europe. By the 1300s, the climate had turned much colder.
Trade decreased with Norway, partly because of political and economic factors in Norway, but also because of the increasing sea ice, which made transoceanic travel more costly and dangerous. After the early 1400s, contact was completely lost with the Greenland Vikings. When the next European ship sailed into the region almost 150 years later, the sailors encountered no surviving settlers. While the colder temperatures affected the Vikings primarily through lower crop yields and a stressed food supply, increased sea ice likely had some effect by cutting off the delivery of necessary supplies from mainland Europe.

source: nsidc.org...

Originally posted by TheRedneck
OK, I know which page you meant. But rather than just post a page with a definition of precipitation, how about telling me what you disagree with in my post? I think that would more aid the debate than just typing in a link to try and say I don't know what I am talking about.

I agree that warmer air is capable of holding more moisture than cold air. That's simple physics. My only point is that the possible moisture content is not the only force that affects precipitation, and compared to the other variables that affect precipitation amounts, a 3°C temperature rise is minor. Do you disagree with that? If so, what are the physics upon which you base this disagreement?

TheRedneck

It's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing with what you posted.

It's that you really don't seem to understand the subject matter.

The amount of precipitation depends solely on the amount of moisture the air can precipitate once the dew point is reached.

You're talking about "other variables" - which makes no sense. Temp, dew point, absolute humidity and relative humidity. These are the 4 parts of the equation. That's it. What else could there be?

reply to post by vox2442

I agree with this post. I thought that was what I said.

I read your initial post in this thread to state that the only variable involved was the temperature of the air masses. All I was pointing out was that the temperature differential and humidity were also factors, which you just stated. Why are we arguing while stating the same thing in different words? Temperature (both before and after the precipitation) and humidity are both involved.

There is a reason why I try to be so thorough on this subject. Too many people are already confused by partial facts and minor distortions of the truth to allow any errors to slip through and possibly further confuse them. Those behind the agenda smell money, and they will not stop their assault on the people of the world until they either achieve their goals or they are soundly defeated. I can do little on most fronts, but this one place I can battle against the hysteria, and this one war I (we) will win. Do not take my replies to you personally; I have corrected close friends on this subject many times for this simple reason, and usually the reason, as apparently with you, is that a post was merely simplified for convenience. The odds are just too high to allow the current Global Warming hysteria to go unanswered or to allow it to grow in the shadows of ignorance.

TheRedneck

Found this article interesting.

Less Ice In Arctic Ocean 6000-7000 Years Ago.

Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.

”The climate in the northern regions has never been milder since the last Ice Age than it was about 6000-7000 years ago. We still don’t know whether the Arctic Ocean was completely ice free, but there was more open water in the area north of Greenland than there is today,” says Astrid Lyså, a geologist and researcher at the Geological Survey of Norway (NGU).

www.sciencedaily.com...