tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post7574284926486375647..comments2024-03-11T04:54:26.827-07:00Comments on THE HOCKEY SCHTICK: New paper finds Western Himalayan glaciers stable to increasing in sizeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-91860514823880169122014-11-03T19:40:01.071-08:002014-11-03T19:40:01.071-08:00Norway and New Zealand glaciers are advancing....
...Norway and New Zealand glaciers are advancing....<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0435-3676.2005.00249.x/abstract<br />Norway and New Zealand both experienced recent glacial advances, commencing in the early 1980s and ceasing around 2000, which were more extensive than any other since the end of the Little Ice Age. Common to both countries, the positive glacier balances are associated with an increase in the strength of westerly atmospheric circulation which brought increased precipitation. In Norway, the changes are also associated with lower ablation season temperatures. In New Zealand, where the positive balances were distributed uniformly throughout the Southern Alps, the period of increased mass balance was coincident with a change in the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation and an associated increase in El Niño/Southern Oscillation events<br /><br /> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2006JD007407/abstract<br />A comparison between these results and recent accumulation observations, together with the strong relationship between valley precipitation and snow accumulation, suggests that surface accumulation rates did not change significantly over the entire 20th century. Moreover, the small ice thickness changes, less than 3 m on the average, observed at Mont Blanc and Dôme du Goûter between 1905 and 2005 clearly reveal that these high-elevation glaciated areas have not been significantly affected by climate change over the last 100 years.<br />Kenneth Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00198431792165032103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-43597954550220233332014-05-27T10:28:01.380-07:002014-05-27T10:28:01.380-07:00You seem to have a very simplistic view on climate...You seem to have a very simplistic view on climate, such that you believe climate models can make regional projections of ice increase/decrease<br /><br />Such as the pathetic prediction that Antarctica would lose more sea ice than the Arctic, while Antarctica is at record highs and global sea ice above normal.<br /><br />Such as the claim from the models "wet gets wetter, dry gets drier" also recently falsified <br /><br />http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/05/new-paper-finds-wet-get-wetter-and-dry.html<br /><br />Ice has been melting for the past 20,000 years since the last ice age and this won't stop until the next ice age begins. It is not "evidence" of AGW. Prior interglacials were much warmer, sea levels 31 feet higher during the Eemain. No evidence this interglacial is any different.MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-54162941941292034562014-05-25T17:44:27.443-07:002014-05-25T17:44:27.443-07:00oh you seem to have a very simplistic view on the ...oh you seem to have a very simplistic view on the climate system then.<br />we actually even expect ice mass increase in some regions.<br /><br />and also the article the WUWTlers found. shows still a net loss. and the authors themself say the betterment in the number of stable glaciers, coinsides with the hiatus which could explain it, but more research is needed.<br /><br />so no that is absolutely no argument against AGW.<br />it is grasping at straws.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06809712374001740120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-50742493896381368722014-05-24T07:43:01.725-07:002014-05-24T07:43:01.725-07:00Please read the second most recent paper I linked ...Please read the second most recent paper I linked to <br /><br />http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/10/melting-by-2035-hardly-new-study-shows-most-himalayan-glaciers-are-stable-and-in-a-steady-state/<br /><br />which finds most Himalayan glaciers are stable & in steady state. <br /><br />"Do you think growing glaciers in some regions contradicts AGW in any way?"<br /><br />Yes, global warming is global and CO2 "radiative forcing" is essentially the same globally. The fact that there are large regional differences points to internal variability, not "radiative forcing" from GHGs as the drivers. MShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06714540297202434542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4142988674703954802.post-4625728327521044822014-05-24T03:44:08.513-07:002014-05-24T03:44:08.513-07:00"These findings support the assumption of the..."These findings support the assumption of the anomalous behavior of glaciers in the Karakoram in comparison to adjacent mountain ranges, which indicate glacier recession and thinning (Bolch et al., 2012; Hewitt, 2005; Gardelle et al., 2013; Kääb et al., 2012; Scherler et al., 2011)."<br /><br />so that means the glaciers around this region are behaving differently, thus are loosing mass.<br /><br />Do you think growing glaciers in some regions contradicts AGW in any way?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06809712374001740120noreply@blogger.com