Glaciers disappearing from Kilimanjaro

[Robert Edmonds]

Originally Posted by Dan Robinson

As the article itelf mentions, once any dark ground surface is exposed, the decreased albedo results in a runaway exponentially-accelerating melting cycle. So the point of argument would be at the moment that the first significant uncovering of bare ground around the glaciers occured, and what caused that to happen. From that point onward, the 'runaway' accelerating melting rates would be a factor of local albedo change, not any shift in world climate.

If you consider globally ice is decreasing I wouldn't be suprised if there is a local and global change in temperature resulting from changes in albedo. My question is globally what percent of temperature increase be attributed to changes in increased absorption, and what percent can be attributed to changes in albedo?

[Larry J. Kosch]

As they say, "The proof is in the pudding":

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3054

The two photos taken seven years apart shows the dramatic meltdown of the glaciers. In the not too distant future, we will see the once majestic mountain peak without its snowy shroud.

[James Langford]

Originally Posted by Larry J. Kosch

As they say, "The proof is in the pudding":

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3054

The two photos taken seven years apart shows the dramatic meltdown of the glaciers. In the not too distant future, we will see the once majestic mountain peak without its snowy shroud.

Larry, I'm not sure that your link above supports the ice loss caused be melting. In the article, it states:

"It should be noted that the differences in the summit’s appearance in these scenes are due in large part to seasonal variations in snow cover. It is not possible to distinguish seasonal snow from ice in these images, so they cannot be used as an indication of the rate of the loss of ice."

I know that up in Glacier Park, in Montana, the season snow and ice coverage can vary drastically from year to year.

James

[Joshua Nall]

What I find disturbing about this whole debate is that the media will show photos similar to the one posted above and then not tell you all the facts surrounding the photos. I'm all for good debate and good science. Good science says the earth is warming, not too many folks would disagree with that. The question is, is man causing it and how much of it? There is global warming, which is natural, then there is manmade global warming. There is absolutely no way to tell the difference. There is NO WAY to tell how much the temperature of the earth is changing due to natural cycles. Any speculation by us mere mortals is just that, speculation.

I'm not saying man caused global warming does not exist, but it's not science, it's a religion. It's something you have to believe in, cause there is nothing to definitively prove it. And just like any religion, it's making some folks a lot of money and going to be the reason you'll be giving up some of yours. It's more about money and control than anything. Wouldn't surprise me a bit if 100 years from now we start cooling and you can bet it will be linked to some sort of human activity, so someone somewhere can make some money and regulate something.

[rdale]

Originally Posted by Larry J. Kosch

As they say, "The proof is in the pudding":

That must be some curdled pudding you're eating - since the only thing that proves is they get more snow when it's cold than when it's warm

[Jason Harris]

Actually Josh to assert dogmatically there is "no way" to know the truth is begging the question and antithetical to the scientific method. A true skeptic demands evidence, and there's evidence galore, but as usual too many people seem to think they know better than the climatologists, those studying glaciers, etc.

Clearly, if you're talking about Mount Kilimanjaro in particular there's a lot of uncertainty about the exact cause and variability--the NY times article does a good job with that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/wo...ca/03melt.html

However, the larger issue of global and especially arctic ice loss is far less ambiguous, unless one million years isn't long enough a period to consider:
http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...091029?sp=true

"From a practical perspective, if you want to ship across the pole, you're concerned about multiyear sea ice. You're not concerned about this rotten stuff we were doing 13 knots through. It's easy to navigate through."

Scientists have fretted for decades about the pace at which the Arctic ice sheets are shrinking. U.S. data shows the 2009 ice cover was the third-lowest on record, after 2007 and 2008.

An increasing number of experts feel the North Pole will be ice free in summer by 2030 at the latest, for the first time in a million years.

"I would argue that, from a practical perspective, we almost have a seasonally ice-free Arctic now, because multiyear sea ice is the barrier to the use and development of the Arctic," said Barber.

While others fiddle, the shipping industry makes it plans for ice-free travel, and yes the albedo effect is part of that acceleration (how could it not be?):

Shipping companies are already looking to benefit from warming waters. This year two German cargo ships successfully navigated from South Korea along Russia's northern Siberia coast without the help of icebreakers.

The Arctic is warming up three times more quickly than the rest of the Earth, in part because of the reflectivity, or the albedo feedback effect, of ice.

As more and more ice melts, larger expanses of darker sea water are exposed. These absorb more sunlight than the ice and cause the water to heat up more quickly, thereby melting more ice.

Anyway, most people can probably agree that it's sad to see Mt. K's ice go, but heck, in India apparently there's somebody building glaciers:
--
http://blog.taragana.com/n/indian-en...arming-209394/

A retired Indian engineer has claimed to have “built” 12 new glaciers, in an effort to stop global warming melting away the Himalayan glaciers.

According to a report in the Telegraph, Chewang Norphel, 76, has said that he “built” 12 new glaciers already and is racing to create five more before he dies.

Oh and there's NASA of course too (from July--same month that the ocean was declared warmest on record), in case anyone forgot from NOAA:

The planet’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for July, breaking the previous high mark established in 1998 according to an analysis by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for July 2009 ranked fifth-warmest since world-wide records began in 1880.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...obalstats.html

but I recall from previous threads how some folks think NASA is run by AL Gore or something like that:

NASA’s Ice, Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) provides new clues about the presence of ice in the Arctic and you already know the picture isn’t pretty. Critical thick ice coverage has dropped by a staggering 595,000 square miles, more than the land size of the U.S.’ largest state - Alaska - in just four years.

&

NASA said that the amount of ice replaced in the winter has not been sufficient to offset summer ice losses. The result is more open water in summer, which then absorbs more heat, warming the ocean and further melting the ice.

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainabilit...pace-nasa-says

[Robert Edmonds]

Originally Posted by Robert Edmonds

If you consider globally ice is decreasing I wouldn't be suprised if there is a local and global change in temperature resulting from changes in albedo. My question is globally what percent of temperature increase be attributed to changes in increased absorption, and what percent can be attributed to changes in albedo?

Just to make sure there isn't any ambiguity in my post. I wasn't suggesting human forcing didn't cause the albedo change. I was merely asking if you were to prevent albedo changes, like in a Global Circulation Model (GCM), what would be the resulting temperature change just from the additional IR absorption caused by the additional CO2? I.e. just wondering the significance of this feedback effect is compared to just the additional CO2 IR absorption.

[MatthewCarman]

I still think this is a natural part of Earth's life cycle. We have had big global warm up's in the past including the one in the medieval period that was followed by the little ice age. I think if the planet did get to warm we would end up in another ice age but I don't think that will happen. I did read a story where people found a cave that had been covered in ice for the longest time and after the ice melted away they found mining tools. Also wasn't Greenland "green" at one time?

I also want to add many scientists believe we are entering global cooling. Just something to think about.

This is all pointless though. In the many threads we had on this topic in the past that became heated they proved only one thing. No matter how hard people tried very few people changed their minds on this topic.

[Darren Addy]

Originally Posted by MatthewCarman

Also wasn't Greenland "green" at one time?

You don't have to do a lot of Googling to learn the history of Greenland's name. Let's just say that the vikings were not a lot different than realtors when it comes to naming things. Greenland = "nice starter home". Conversely, Iceland was named to discourage people from discovering it is one of the geothermal wonders of our planet.

[Joshua Nall]

Originally Posted by Jason Harris

Actually Josh to assert dogmatically there is "no way" to know the truth is begging the question and antithetical to the scientific method. A true skeptic demands evidence, and there's evidence galore, but as usual too many people seem to think they know better than the climatologists, those studying glaciers, etc.

There is evidence galore that the earth is currently warming most definitely, and has been since at least the last 150 years. But I guess I'm failing to get my point across... whoopteedo, the earth is warming.... the earth warms, the earth cools, the sun has cycles, the earth's temperature follows these cycles, what's new? None of this matters unless someone can tell me what the temperature of the earth should be right now. This whole argument is based on a premise.... that the earth is hotter at present, than it would naturally be in the absence of human activity. It's a premise that can't be proven.

Yet there is no mention of these things from the experts "on TV". No... rather its always: The earth is getting hotter and we are causing it and we are all going to die if we do not drastically change our lifestyles. Something else they don't mention is that as the suns activity increases and the earth warms, C02 levels also increase. More C02 is given off by plants and the oceans, therefore, rising C02 levels are a result of a warming earth. Rising C02 levels are not solely do to human activity. But you won't hear that cause it does not fit the religious doctrine.

Greenland was green back around 1100, at least a larger portion of it, then the little ice age happened. Greenland has it's cycles, just like the earth has it's cycles, just like the sun has it's cycles.