|
|
Post by byz on Nov 29, 2008 21:34:34 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by alex4ever on Nov 30, 2008 21:54:32 GMT
We wonder the same in Winter Watch Section ;D . Well ask God but i do not quarantee you ll find an asnwer  |
|
|
|
Post by kiwistonewall on Mar 11, 2009 2:25:00 GMT
Please Note: I'm listing evidence for some decades of cooling in NZ - then discussing this below. Read on. Glaciers steadily advancing over many years: Back in 2000: New Zealand glacier response to climate change of the past 2 decades Oblique aerial photography of 111 glaciers during the past 2 decades has recorded a reversal of the past century glacier-recession trend. Cirque glaciers show little response to the recent mass balance increase; mountain glaciers show visible advances. Some valley glaciers have advanced, some have thickened in the upper trunk, and the larger ones and those with proglacial lakes continue to recede. The shift to advance is driven b y an average lowering of snowlines of 67 m, equivalent to a cooling of 0.47°C if other factors are held constant.
So we've had cooling during the whole period of AGW fundamentalism? ;D www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6VF0-3YHWS3C-G&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=bbbe432f07a9aad52520ede80089f16cAs of January 2009, the "the Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers are advancing and have vertical, or in places overhanging, terminal faces. These are highly active and extremely dangerous places to be. They are continually subject to unpredictable rock and ice falls" www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK0901/S00049.htmBack in 2006, the 2 best known Kiwi glaciers were growing fast: The Department of Conservation is worried someone will be killed as giant chunks of ice are falling from rapidly advancing glaciers in the middle of the peak visitor season. Staff believe the risk of ice collapse at the face of the Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers is high and visitors are ignoring warning signs and putting themselves at risk.
Both glaciers are advancing at the rate of about a metre a week.
Fox is pushing up the sides of the valley, stressing the terminal face and causing rock falls and ice collapse.
The Franz Josef terminal face is moving over a section of rock that is raising it up and causing pressure that will release as it crosses the highest point of the rock, significantly increasing potential hazards.
www.nzherald.co.nz/fox-glacier/news/article.cfm?l_id=500593&objectid=10363304And a few have died recently from ignoring the warnings. (Jan 2009) www.nzherald.co.nz/fox-glacier/news/article.cfm?l_id=500593&objectid=10551277Yet: Despite being a very dynamic glacier, very little research has been carried out on Fox Glacier in recent years muir.massey.ac.nz/handle/10179/644No funding for anything that appears to oppose AGW? Some neat Glacier shots here (plus other NZ attractions!) www.ukgser.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1561209============================================ Now to sum up: The El Ninos of the previous 20 years (1985 -2005) have COOLED New Zealand's Alps, and the Glaciers advanced. (In spite of recent revisionism). Moving tp a period of mostly La Ninas may make the Glaciers retreat and cause "Global Warming" in NZ! ;D It is fairly obvious from my studies of rural weather stations in NZ that temperature has declined in NZ, not risen. The "Global warming" of recent decades may be only a Northern Hemisphere problem. This fits in with the Antarctic, which hasn't shown a retreat in recent decades, unlike the Arctic. The point is, that CO2 induced warming should affect the whole planet - not just one hemisphere! Ergo, no AGW. |
|
|
|
Post by douglavers on Mar 11, 2009 4:52:55 GMT
There is an article in The Independant [UK newspaper] today saying that sea levels are rising twice as fast as expected, and the glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic are melting furiously.
The authors of this report are Professor Konrad Steffen, from the University of Colorado, Dr John Church, of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Tasmania, Dr Eric Rignot, of Nasa's jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, and Professor Stefan Rahmsdorf, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.
What credibility do we give this report?
|
|
|
|
Post by poitsplace on Mar 11, 2009 5:25:25 GMT
There is an article in The Independant [UK newspaper] today saying that sea levels are rising twice as fast as expected, and the glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic are melting furiously. The authors of this report are Professor Konrad Steffen, from the University of Colorado, Dr John Church, of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Tasmania, Dr Eric Rignot, of Nasa's jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, and Professor Stefan Rahmsdorf, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. What credibility do we give this report? None...since the actual data indicates sea levels have not risen since 2006 (because...temperatures haven't increased). The melting of the Greenland ice sheet did increase for a bit but it's calmed back down as temperatures dropped. They LOVE to mention the rate surging to an incredible 62 cubic kilometers per year...they just don't like you to know there are over a million cubic kilometers of ice in the Greenland ice sheet and that even at the accelerated rates it would take THOUSANDS of years for there to be any substantial melting. Here's another amusing little thought. Sea levels have ALREADY risen as much as the IPCC projects they'll rise by 2100. So...how about all those inundated cities you've heard about?? How about all those people killed in the developing world. Funny isn't it...somehow they all seem to have figured out over the hundred years or so that it takes that it's time to move when the waves are lapping on your back porch and a storm knocks down their house. It's almost as if that sort of adaptation is...trivial. LOL, the costs of adaption to rising sea levels are almost free too. How many 100+ year old structures are there? Usually they're knocked down to build something new. The new structures will be built safer distances from the shore. What kind of idiot would build in the water and blame global warming? |
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Mar 11, 2009 8:54:17 GMT
I'm hearing all these reports on rising sea levels today on BBC radio. They all sound very confident of their "new" information from the "coal face" in Antarctica and Greenland being reported in Copenhagen
What exactly is this "new information"?
|
|
|
|
Post by neilhamp on Mar 11, 2009 17:58:24 GMT
Abstracts from the Copehagen news reports
Professor Konrad Steffen, from the University of Colorado, Dr John Church, of the Centre for Australian Weather and Climate Research in Tasmania, Dr Eric Rignot, of Nasa's jet propulsion laboratory in Pasadena, and Professor Stefan Rahmsdorf, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, are all experts in sea-level rise. Their views represent the mainstream opinion of researchers in the field, taking account of the most recent data.
Only two years ago, the UN's Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its Fourth Assessment Report, or AR4, that the worst-case prediction for global sea-level rise was 59cm by 2100. But the scientists in Copenhagen suggested that the 2007 report was a drastic underestimation of the problem, and that oceans were likely to rise twice as fast.
|
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 11, 2009 18:23:12 GMT
The IPCC report says, to paraphrase, the predicted upper limit of sea-level rise this century from ice melt plus thermal expansion is 59cm. They would not provide a prediction of further sea-level rises due to changes in ice-sheet dynamics (ie glaciers flowing faster etc.) as the figures are uncertain and as there is no consensus. This latest report is an assessment of rises due to changes in ice sheet dynamics. There were widespread predictions at the time the report was issued that the nuance would be deliberately misinterpreted by sceptics. That's at least one prediction the IPCC got right (to answer a question just put in another thread)  |
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Mar 12, 2009 5:46:22 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Mar 12, 2009 11:54:53 GMT
He has been attacked on this and other boards mainly in an ad-hominem way as his reports and his opinion run contrary to the AGW view that oceans will rise by meters. He is probably the most experienced ocean level researcher both theoretically and in the field. Yet more weight would be given by the media and politicians to a poor paper from a graduate student that agreed with AGW than to his that are against it. This is a battle over public perception not facts. |
|
|
|
Post by steve on Mar 12, 2009 13:30:18 GMT
No nautonnier, you've got it the wrong way around. Mörner has been attacked in part because of *his* ad hominem attacks on the scientist.
If one or two people want to call him a deluded prat for saying what he says, then what comes around goes around surely. Most of the comments I've seen give scientific reasons for dismissing what he has to say. That he hasn't formally published his more extreme views, as far as I can see, isn't much help to him.
|
|
