|
Post by icefisher on May 17, 2010 20:24:58 GMT
In 2007 Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State who, along with his wife, member of the National Academy of Sciences, heads the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State predicted in 2007 that Qori Kalis glacier would be gone in 5 years.
After nearly a generation of being continually regaled with the melting rate of Qori Kalis by Thompson, suddenly despite two subsequent expeditions by him to the area, with him expecting his 2008 expedition to reveal another 50% gone over measurements taken a year prior, no report has been forthcoming regarding the prediction.
Does this mean no news is good news? Should we expect such an approach to science for the foreseeable future where people preach doom and gloom and when they find out its better they don't tell anybody?
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 17, 2010 21:53:36 GMT
The 2000 pic (in blue) with how it appears on google Earth at the moment. Impossible to line them up exactly due to the older one being from a low angle. Seem like it'll be around for another while. These photos were most likely taken at the same time due to google earth using the highest res images they can find!!
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 17, 2010 22:05:42 GMT
Thats really slick!
Guess the good Doctor and monitor this instead of mounting those expensive trips. Looks like the ice is growing substantially.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 19, 2010 7:49:13 GMT
Didn't he say "could be gone" in "about" 5 years? Doesn't he have "about" 3 years left? Doesn't he get any leeway based on the fact that he might have based his predictions on other predictions of a rapid reassertion of warming which has not quite happened? Isn't the fact that the glacier has retreated remarkably so far of interest? I guess while there is the chance for a minor criticism of a prediction, the assumed answers will be no, no, no and no. And furthermore, he will be criticised for spending money on observing the earth system instead of spending it on models
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 19, 2010 8:56:49 GMT
Well, here's a picture of it from around 2008. So the supposed recent satellite image I have up there is likely to be seriously out of date. Maybe the Doctor died of a broken heart when he found it was gone on his most recent trip Although The Guardian did run a piece recently on how many Andean villagers were suffering fatally cold temperatures last year, which was blamed on *drumroll* Global Warming.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 19, 2010 9:48:14 GMT
I know it is amusing to point out these apparent contradictions. But in the tropical Andes, the cold season is the dry season, whereas in mid-latitudes, cold is due to winter. If the drier season is drier and longer due to the impact of the loss of the glaciers then it is no contradiction. I was in the Andes in 2006 and our guide (who had been out of the guiding business for a few years) was shocked by the cold (-12 at night at 4000 metres - one of our party had to resort to using a very smelly mule blanket). Then again, it could be weather. BTW, we saw grass and shrubs up at 4800 metres. Amazing how the plants can grow when the heavy CO2 couldn't possibly get that far up
|
|
|
Post by hairball on May 19, 2010 10:19:12 GMT
Those are specially adapted shrubs, Steve, they live entirely on hydrogen - the only gas light enough to exist at such altitudes. I was up around 4,500m in Bolivia in 2002 when it was -15C; bathing suit weather in North Dakota.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on May 19, 2010 11:05:30 GMT
Yep.....we are getting ready for the polar plunge in those temps. Cut a hole in the ice and go swimming....
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on May 19, 2010 14:49:26 GMT
Didn't he say "could be gone" in "about" 5 years? Doesn't he have "about" 3 years left? Doesn't he get any leeway based on the fact that he might have based his predictions on other predictions of a rapid reassertion of warming which has not quite happened? Here is the article: www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1392295.ece"Professor Thompson said. When he visits this summer, he expects to find that the glacier has halved in size since last year, and he believes that Qori Kalis will be gone within five years. " And should he get leeway for relying on the predictions of others for continued warming? Leeway from what? I am not comprehending what you are defending him from. . . .his own predictions? If you go to the racetrack and take a tip from a local tout do you get credit at the window for relying on a tout when your horse doesn't come in? Skulking out of the room with empty pockets I guess is what you do must be bad news to him despite being . . . .uh. . . .good news to the rest of us? Isn't the fact that the glacier has retreated remarkably so far of interest? I guess while there is the chance for a minor criticism of a prediction, the assumed answers will be no, no, no and no. And furthermore, he will be criticised for spending money on observing the earth system instead of spending it on models Reaching a bit there Steve. I think what he got criticized for was not finishing a report after spending the public's money. Didn't you learn anything in school? Seems to me that was the most consistent lesson. . . .but hey I am a product of the "old school" what do I know?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 19, 2010 15:44:10 GMT
I know it is amusing to point out these apparent contradictions. But in the tropical Andes, the cold season is the dry season, whereas in mid-latitudes, cold is due to winter. If the drier season is drier and longer due to the impact of the loss of the glaciers then it is no contradiction. I was in the Andes in 2006 and our guide (who had been out of the guiding business for a few years) was shocked by the cold (-12 at night at 4000 metres - one of our party had to resort to using a very smelly mule blanket). Then again, it could be weather. BTW, we saw grass and shrubs up at 4800 metres. Amazing how the plants can grow when the heavy CO2 couldn't possibly get that far up On which of your travels have you witnessed unprecedented warming?
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 20, 2010 9:58:40 GMT
You're a sarcastic beggar, aren't you Our Andes guide was genuinely shocked by the shrinkage of the glaciers. I've also seen the devastation caused by a glacial lake outburst in the Hinku valley - this sort of thing would become more common in a warming world (only until all the glaciers have melted of course). No doubt for each of the 80-odd percent of glaciers that are shrinking some alternative non-global-warming-related explanation will be found to explain the importance away.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on May 20, 2010 11:34:27 GMT
You're a sarcastic beggar, aren't you Our Andes guide was genuinely shocked by the shrinkage of the glaciers. I've also seen the devastation caused by a glacial lake outburst in the Hinku valley - this sort of thing would become more common in a warming world (only until all the glaciers have melted of course). No doubt for each of the 80-odd percent of glaciers that are shrinking some alternative non-global-warming-related explanation will be found to explain the importance away. So we have 'shock' due to the cold and 'shock' due to the shrinking glaciers. The glaciers form due to snowfall - and this has reduced or stopped. The air is _drier_ than normal - this would explain both the reducing glaciers and the cold. It will be especially cold at night with no water vapor to act as a green house gas. This would also explain how atmospheric temperatures can rise rapidly with little added heat content. So while AGW proponents can dance around cheering about record high temperatures the actual heat content of the Earth is reducing. The green house gas theory is about trapping _heat energy_. Termperature of the atmosphere is the wrong metric for measuring atmospheric heat content.
|
|
|
Post by steve on May 21, 2010 10:03:02 GMT
nautonnier,
You are forgetting that the tropical Andes have both dry seasons and wet seasons.
|
|
|
Post by hunter on May 21, 2010 12:54:42 GMT
Did The W. coast of South America experience a dry El Nino this time?
|
|
|
Post by woodstove on May 21, 2010 13:49:31 GMT
You're a sarcastic beggar, aren't you Our Andes guide was genuinely shocked by the shrinkage of the glaciers. I've also seen the devastation caused by a glacial lake outburst in the Hinku valley - this sort of thing would become more common in a warming world (only until all the glaciers have melted of course). No doubt for each of the 80-odd percent of glaciers that are shrinking some alternative non-global-warming-related explanation will be found to explain the importance away. Steve, It was a sincere question. I note that you detail no personal observations of warmth in response. Two points: (a) Glacial behavior is among the easier things to cherry-pick (b) It stands to reason that glaciers would be shrinking after their maximum Holocene extent during the Little Ice Age, in the absence of the LIA conditions that promoted their growth. Those claiming "unprecedented" glacial melt have thousands of problems on their hands, well exemplified in the case of Schnidejoch Pass with its documented melt-freeze cycle throughout the Holocene. When you visited the U.S. recently I believe you witnessed colder-than-normal conditions in the Rockies for the season, and your description of your guide being "shocked by the cold" in the Andes seemed like more of the same. This prompted me to ask whether you have witnessed firsthand worrisome warming, and I take from your response that the question made you uncomfortable. Harold
|
|