Glaciers disappearing from Kilimanjaro

What in the world does this have to do with "weather and chasing"?


John, I withdraw my comment. I thought this thread should be in "bar and grill" but I see there is no "bar and grill" any longer. Mods: Could we bring it back?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What in the world does this have to do with "weather and chasing"?


John, I withdraw my comment. I thought this thread should be in "bar and grill" but I see there is no "bar and grill" any longer. Mods: Could we bring it back?

Go into your cp and add it. You have to subscribe to the Bar & Grill now
 
Ah, I see Mike is always eager to crush a climate change thread, or anything related, but John Farley's post is relevant to the guidelines of "unusual temperatures" which is mentioned in Tim's rules. The big picture of climate is interesting to consider for weather anyhow.
Similar changes are being reported at Mount Kenya and the Rwenzori Mountains in Africa and at glaciers in South America and the Himalayas.

"The fact that so many glaciers throughout the tropics and subtropics are showing similar responses suggests an underlying common cause," Thompson said in a statement. "The increase of Earth's near surface temperatures, coupled with even greater increases in the mid- to upper-tropical troposphere, as documented in recent decades, would at least partially explain" the observations.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091102/ap_on_sc/us_sci_snows_of_kilimanjaro
 
Jason,

If you will read what I wrote, I was not attempting to "crush" a thread but have it located in the right place. Global warming is a contentious issue for many and "Bar and Grill" is the better place from my perspective.

However, since you opened the door by citing "unusual temperatures", please provide evidence that temperatures in the specific area of the glacier have run far above normal for the 2000-2007 period. Those are the only temperatures pertinent to a discussion about temperatures and that glacier.

Otherwise, this is a better explanation: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/02/oh-no-not-this-kilimanjaro-rubbish-again/

Mike
 
As Jason suggests, I put it here because I thought it related to issues of weather and climate. In the link Mike provided I saw mention in various comments of unusual dryness and stronger winds as possible explanations, in addition to warmer temperatures. All related to weather and climate, so I don't think it belongs in B&G. Note I did not say anything about the cause - but whatever is going on it affects more than just Kilimanjaro, because the article mentions there are similar declines in tropical mountain glaciers in other parts of the world.
 
Since we're on the subject of climate change. With greenhouse gases increasing the IR optical depth, how much of the warming is instead contributed to a lowered albedo of the earth. That is the greenhouse gases increases surface temperatures, initiating some warming, thus causing ice to melt, which in turn would decrease albedo. This to me is potentially more dangerous since aren't most of the CO2 absorption bands fairly saturated as it is? It's also easy to derive that temperature of earth is proportional to (1-Albedo)^(1/4). I don't know that much about the subject as some, so perhaps another could chime in.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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
 
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.
 
Back
Top