Learn English with English, baby!

Join for FREE!

English Forums

Use our English forums to learn English. The message boards are great for English questions and English answers. The more you contribute, the more all members can practice English!

:  

Life Talk!

UN Climate Data Shows Global Warming Has Stopped

10:43 AM Dec 11 2008 | Reply

Nu Pogodi

Nu Pogodi

United States

Pacific water temperature at a 20 year low.
3.0 inches of snow in Beaumont, Texas and snow in New Orleans.
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/storms/winter/2008-12-11-snow-south_N.htm?csp=23&RM_Exclude=aol

 

10:45 AM Dec 11 2008 | Reply

Nu Pogodi

Nu Pogodi

United States

By Patrick J. Michaels

World Climate Report | 10,000 people from 86 countries have descended upon Poznan, Poland for yet-another United Nations meeting on climate change. This time, it’s the annual confab of the nations that signed the original U.N. climate treaty in Rio in 1992. That instrument gave rise to the infamous 1996 Kyoto Protocol on global warming, easily the greatest failure in the history of environmental diplomacy.

Kyoto was supposed to reduce global emissions of carbon dioxide below 1990 levels during the period 2008-2012. But since it was signed, the atmospheric concentration of this putative pollutant continued to rise, pretty much at the same rate it did before Kyoto. (Even if the world had lived up to the letter of the Kyoto law, it would have exerted an influence on global temperature that would have been too small to measure.)

The purpose of the Poznan meeting is to work out some type of framework that goes “Beyond Kyoto.” After completely failing in its first attempt to internationally limit carbon dioxide emissions, the U.N. will propose reductions far greater than those called for by Kyoto. Kyoto failed because it was too expensive, so anything “beyond” will cost much more.

The fact is that the world cannot afford any expensive climate policies now. Economic conditions are so bad that carbon dioxide emissions—the byproduct of our commerce—are likely going down because of the financial cold spell, not the climatic one. Indeed, a permanent economic ice-age would likely result from any mandated large cuts in emissions. If you’re liking your 401(k) today, you’ll love “Beyond Kyoto.”

Before proposing an even harsher treaty the U.N. ought to pay attention to its own climate science. It regularly publishes temperature histories from its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which was formed in the late 1980s with the express charge of finding a scientific basis for a global climate treaty.

Since Kyoto, a very funny thing has happened to global temperatures: IPCC data clearly show that warming has stopped—even though its computer models said such a thing could not happen.

According to the IPCC, the world reached its high-temperature mark in 1998, thanks to a big “El Niño,” which is a temporary warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean that occurs once or twice a decade. El Niño years are usually followed by one or two relatively cold years, as occurred in 1999 and 2000. The cooling is, not surprisingly, called La Niña. No one knows what really causes these cycles but they have been going on sporadically for millennia.

Wait a minute. Starting an argument about global warming in 1998 is a bit unfair. After all, that’s starting off with a very hot temperature, followed by two relatively cool years.

Fine. Take those years out of the record and there’s still no statistically significant warming since 1997. When a scientist tells you that some trend is not “significant,” he or she is saying that it cannot mathematically be distinguished from no trend whatsoever.

More important, as shown in our Figure 1, there’s not going to be any significant trend for some time.

Assume, magically, that temperatures begin to warm in 2009 at the rate they were warming before the mid-90s, and that they continue to warm at that rate.

We show two alternatives. One includes the El Niño/La Niña cycle of 1998-2000. Assuming that the old rate of warming reappears in 2009 and continues, the warming since 1998 does not become statistically significant until 2021.

Our other alternative simply removes the El Niño/La Niña cycle and starts in 1997. Under that assumption, warming doesn’t become significant until 2020.

Whatever the assumption, even if the earth resumes warming at the pre-1998 rate, we will have nearly a quarter-century without a significant warming trend.

Article and graphs here:

http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/UN-Climate-Data-Shows-Global-Warming-Has-Stopped.html

12:50 PM Dec 11 2008 | Reply

Mystery

Mystery

Christmas Island

Nu! Just because some idiot writes a thing about global warming doesn't mean it's over. The US has it's head up its ass about it AND about the state of their economy. They don't want to face global warming because it will interfere with so many parts of their life. Americans aren't used to hardships, specially not when it concerns other people. 

And USA Today? What kind of unimpeachable source is that? 

Ah well. I guess it will start some discussion anyway. :)

12:53 PM Dec 11 2008 | Reply

Nu Pogodi

Nu Pogodi

United States

The author of the article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_J._Michaels

 

 

02:45 PM Dec 11 2008 | Reply

spontan

spontan

Germany

the scientist should leave their computer,and see the real.made this picture this year in Canada rocky mountain where i stood for this photo was the end of the glacier 1900 look where the glacier is now they marked every year and every year the glacier melts more…

12:58 PM Dec 12 2008 | Reply

Nu Pogodi

Nu Pogodi

United States

After 2 centuries of shrinking, Alaska glaciers got thicker this year

By Craig Medred, Space & Earth science / Earth Sciences


Two hundred years of glacial shrinkage in Alaska, and then came the winter and summer of 2007-2008. Unusually large amounts of winter snow were followed by unusually chill temperatures in June, July and August.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince William Sound," said U.S. Geological Survey glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the surface of the Taku Glacier in late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying, located at about 1,500 feet elevation, did not become snow free until early August.

"In general, the weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years."

Never before in the history of a research project dating back to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.

"It's been a long time on most glaciers where they've actually had positive mass balance," Molnia said.

That's the way a scientist says the glaciers got thicker in the middle.

Mass balance is the difference between how much snow falls every winter and how much snow fades away each summer. For most Alaska glaciers, the summer snow loss has for decades exceeded the winter snowfall.

The result has put the state's glaciers on a long-term diet. Every year they lose the snow of the previous winter plus some of the snow from years before. And so they steadily shrink.

Since Alaska's glacial maximum back in the 1700s, Molnia said, "I figure that we've lost about 15 percent of the total area."

What might be the most notable long-term shrinkage has occurred at Glacier Bay, now the site of a national park in Southeast Alaska. When the first Russian explorers arrived in Alaska in the 1740s, there was no Glacier Bay. There was simply a wall of ice across the north side of Icy Strait.

That ice retreated to form a bay and what is now known as the Muir Glacier. And from the 1800s until now, the Muir Glacier just kept retreating and retreating and retreating. It is now back 57 miles from the entrance to the bay, said Tom Vandenberg, chief interpretative ranger at Glacier Bay.

That's farther than the distance from glacier-free Anchorage to Girdwood, where seven glaciers overhang the valley surrounding the state's largest ski area. The glaciers there, like the Muir and hundreds of other Alaska glaciers, have been part of the long retreat.

Overall, Molnia figures Alaska has lost 10,000 to 12,000 square kilometers of ice in the past two centuries, enough to cover an area nearly the size of Connecticut.

Molnia has just completed a major study of Alaska glaciers using satellite images and aerial photographs to catalog shrinkage. The 550-page "Glaciers of Alaska" will provide a benchmark for tracking what happens to the state's glaciers in the future.

Climate change has led to speculation they might all disappear. Molnia isn't sure what to expect. As far as glaciers go, he said, Alaska's glaciers are volatile. They live life on the edge.

"What we're talking about to (change) most of Alaska's glaciers is a small temperature change; just a small fraction-of-a-degree change makes a big difference. It's the mean annual temperature that's the big thing.

"All it takes is a warm summer to have a really dramatic effect on the melting."

Or a cool summer to shift that mass balance the other way.

One cool summer that leaves 20 feet of new snow still sitting atop glaciers come the start of the next winter is no big deal, Molnia said.

Ten summers like that?

Well, that might mark the start of something like the Little Ice Age.

During the Little Ice Age – roughly the 16th century to the 19th – Muir Glacier filled Glacier Bay and the people of Europe struggled to survive because of difficult conditions for agriculture. Some of them fled for America in the first wave of white immigration.

The Pilgrims established the Plymouth Colony in December 1620. By spring, a bitterly cold winter had played a key role in helping kill half of them. Hindered by a chilly climate, the white colonization of North America through the 1600s and 1700s was slow.

As the climate warmed from 1800 to 1900, the United States tripled in size. The windy and cold city of Chicago grew from an outpost of fewer than 4,000 in 1800 to a thriving city of more than 1.5 million at the end of that century.

The difference in temperature between the Little Ice Age and these heady days of American expansion?

About three or four degrees, Molnia said.

The difference in temperature between this summer in Anchorage – the third coldest on record – and the norm?

About three degrees, according to the National Weather Service.

Does it mean anything?

Nobody knows. Climate is constantly shifting. And even if the past year was a signal of a changing future, Molnia said, it would still take decades to make itself noticeable in Alaska's glaciers.

Rivers of ice flow slowly. Hundreds of feet of snow would have to accumulate at higher elevations to create enough pressure to stall the current glacial retreat and start a new advance. Even if the glaciers started growing today, Molnia said, it might take up to 100 years for them to start steadily rolling back down into the valleys they've abandoned.

"It's different time scales," he said. "We're just starting to understand."

As strange it might seem, Alaska's glaciers could appear to be shrinking for some time while secretly growing. Molnia said there are a few glaciers in the state now where constant snow accumulations at higher elevations are causing them to thicken even as their lower reaches follow the pattern of retreat fueled by the global warming of recent decades.

_

© 2008, Anchorage Daily News (Anchorage, Alaska).
Visit the Anchorage Daily News online at http://www.adn.com/
Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.

http://www.physorg.com/news145187972.html

 

01:00 PM Dec 12 2008 | Reply

Nu Pogodi

Nu Pogodi

United States

Why Do glaciers move?

The sheer weight of a thick layer of ice and the fact that it deforms as a "plastic" material, combined with gravity's influence, causes glaciers to flow very slowly. Ice may flow down mountain valleys, fan across plains, or in some locations, spread out to the sea. Movement along the underside of a glacier is slower than movement at the top due to the friction created as it slides along the ground's surface.

Glaciers periodically retreat or advance, depending on the amount of snow accumulation or albation that occurs. This retreat or advance refers only to the position of the terminus, or snout, of the glacier. Even as it retreats, the glacier still deforms and moves downslope, like a conveyor belt. For most glaciers, retreating and advancing are very slow occurrences, noticeable only over a long time. However, when glaciers retreat rapidly, movement may be visible over a few months or years. For instance, massive glacier retreat has been recorded in Glacier Bay, Alaska. Other glaciers have been photographed at intervals showing dramatic recession.

Alternatively, glaciers may surge, racing forward several meters per day for weeks or even months. In 1986, the Hubbard Glacier in Alaska began to surge at the rate of 10 meters per day across the mouth of Russell Fiord. In only two months, the glacier had dammed water in the fjord and created a lake. This illustrates how quickly a surging glacier can change its surroundings.

 

01:06 PM Dec 12 2008 | Reply

DE_CARVALLO

United Arab Emirates

Wow… good to have people talking about something unique and related to our lifeThanks brother and I think you are environmental geologist

 

02:25 AM Dec 13 2008 | Reply

spontan

spontan

Germany

oh there has read someone a "auftragsgutachten"so we call in Germany a scientist opinion who is payed from lobbyist like automobilindustrie or government…

fact is first time you could use this year by ship the north west passage it was nearly ice free and look to the photo ,i made in july 2008 north from hudson bay canada,how poor looks the glacier,you can easily see how big the glaciers had once been.

06:37 AM Dec 13 2008 | Reply

Las Verre

Las Verre

Indonesia

is it true that global warming had stopped? But why I still found news in the newspapers about the natural disasters especially flood?

10:12 AM Dec 13 2008 | Reply

talknow

talknow

Jordan

it is good news

thanks for god