On Mar 8, 3:47*pm, Catoni wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:29*am, Earl Evleth wrote:



On 8/03/09 12:25, in article , "Earl

Evleth" wrote:
On 8/03/09 10:36, in article
, "chemist"
wrote:

Why does it stop in 2005? surely the have later data.

Maybe not fully collected and published, In science one is
often a couple of years behind by the time one publishes
a paper (roughly it takes a year to prepare a paper and
9 months between submittal and final appearance.

Chemist, tell us, have you ever published a paper in
a peer review journal?

An update of the current situation is at

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2033

Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says Major USGS
Report Released: 10/6/2008 11:44:25 AM

That is updated. *- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NOPE !!!

* * Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says
Major USGS Report
Released: 10/6/2008 11:44:25 AM
* Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are
experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially
glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the
U.S. Geological Survey. In places, these changes began as early as the
middle of the 18th century.
* *550-page volume

* *Notice the date of the article. *Notice also that it is a 550 page
book that was just published at the time. The data in the book had to
have come from previous information at least earlier in the year or
from the previous year and years before.

* *The fact is, it could not include data from that summer, and fall.
It take time to put together, and publish and print books.

* *The cooler and wetter then usual summer resulted in advancing of
the glaciers after the information for that book was assembled.

* * Next ???

"The Glaciers of Alaska, authored by USGS research geologist Bruce
Molnia, represents a comprehensive overview of the state of the
glaciers of Alaska at the end of the 20th century and beginning of the
21st century."

Catoni wrote:
On Mar 8, 7:29 am, Earl Evleth wrote:
On 8/03/09 12:25, in article , "Earl





Evleth" wrote:
On 8/03/09 10:36, in article
,
"chemist" wrote:

Why does it stop in 2005? surely the have later data.

Maybe not fully collected and published, In science one is
often a couple of years behind by the time one publishes
a paper (roughly it takes a year to prepare a paper and
9 months between submittal and final appearance.

Chemist, tell us, have you ever published a paper in
a peer review journal?

An update of the current situation is at

http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2033

Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says
Major USGS Report Released: 10/6/2008 11:44:25 AM

That is updated. - Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

NOPE !!!

Most Alaskan Glaciers Retreating, Thinning, and Stagnating, Says
Major USGS Report
Released: 10/6/2008 11:44:25 AM
Most glaciers in every mountain range and island group in Alaska are
experiencing significant retreat, thinning or stagnation, especially
glaciers at lower elevations, according to a new book published by the
U.S. Geological Survey. In places, these changes began as early as the
middle of the 18th century.
550-page volume

Notice the date of the article. Notice also that it is a 550 page
book that was just published at the time. The data in the book had to
have come from previous information at least earlier in the year or
from the previous year and years before.

The fact is, it could not include data from that summer, and fall.
It take time to put together, and publish and print books.

The cooler and wetter then usual summer resulted in advancing of
the glaciers after the information for that book was assembled.

Cite please.

marcodbeast wrote:

"Cite please."

( ...in reference to Alaska glaciers growing for a change.)



Reply: Sure marcodbeast. Here you go. Basically, growing
or shrinking glaciers are nothing to be concerned about. They have
always grown, shrunk, disappeared and re-appeared. It's known as
"Nature" and it's normal for climate to change.

from Daily Tech

Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
Michael Asher - October 16, 2008 9:48 AM

(note the date)


Glacier Bay National Park. Two and a half centuries ago, the entire
area was covered by thick sheets of ice.High snowfall and cold weather
to blame.


A bitterly cold Alaskan summer has had surprising results. For the
first time in the area's recorded history, area glaciers have begun to
expand, rather than shrink. Summer temperatures, which were some 3
degrees below average, allowed record levels of winter snow to remain
much longer, leading to the increase in glacial mass.

"In mid-June, I was surprised to see snow still at sea level in Prince
William Sound", said glaciologist Bruce Molnia. "In general, the
weather this summer was the worst I have seen in at least 20 years".

"On the Juneau Icefield, there was still 20 feet of new snow on the
surface [in] late July. At Bering Glacier, a landslide I am studying
[did] not become snow free until early August."

Molnia, who works for the US Geological Survey, said it's been a "long
time" since area glaciers have seen a positive mass balance -- an
increase in the total amount of ice they contain.

Since 1946, the USGS has maintained a research project measuring the
state of Alaskan glaciers. This year saw records broken for most snow
buildup. It was also the first time since any records began being that
the glaciers did not shrink during the summer months.

Those records date from the mid 1700s, when the region was first
visited by Russian explorers. Molnia estimates that Alaskan glaciers
have lost about 15% of their total area since that time -- an area the
size of Connecticut.

One of the largest areas of shrinkage has been at the national park of
Glacier Bay. When Alexei Ilich Chirikof first arrived in 1741, the bay
didn't exist at all -- only a solid wall of ice. From that time until
the early 1900s, the ice retreated some 50 miles, to form the bay and
surrounding area.

Accordingly to Molnia, a difference of just 3 or 4 degrees is enough
to shift the mass balance of glaciers from rapid shrinkage to rapid
growth. From the 1600s to the 1900s, that’s just the amount of warming
that was seen, as the planet exited the Little Ice Age.

Molnia says one cold summer doesn't mean the start of a new climatic
trend. At least years like this, however, might mark the beginning of
another Little Ice Age.

As DailyTech reported earlier, Arctic sea ice this year has also
increased substantially from its low in 2007.


...and ANOTHER CITE. Are you happy now marcodbeast???

UD/RK Samhälls Debatt
Ett rättframt, öppet och intressant forum!

A glacial region in Norway (Source: NRK)Scandinavian nation
reverses trend, mirrors results in Alaska, elsewhere.

After years of decline, glaciers in Norway are again growing, reports
the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). The actual
magnitude of the growth, which appears to have begun over the last two
years, has not yet been quantified, says NVE Senior Engineer Hallgeir
Elvehøy.

The flow rate of many glaciers has also declined. Glacier flow
ultimately acts to reduce accumulation, as the ice moves to lower,
warmer elevations.

The original trend had been fairly rapid decline since the year 2000.

The developments were originally reported by the Norwegian
Broadcasting Corporation (NRK).

DailyTech has previously reported on the growth in Alaskan glaciers,
reversing a 250-year trend of loss. Some glaciers in Canada,
California, and New Zealand are also growing, as the result of both
colder temperatures and increased snowfall.

Ed Josberger, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, says the
growth is “a bit of an anomaly”, but not to be unexpected.

Despite the recent growth, most glaciers in the nation are still
smaller than they were in 1982. However, Elvehøy says that the
glaciers were even smaller during the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ of the
Viking Era, prior to around the year 1350.

Not all Norwegian glaciers appear to be affected, most notably those
in the Jotenheimen region of Southern Norway.

On Mar 8, 3:22*pm, JohnM wrote:
On Mar 8, 12:25 pm, Earl Evleth wrote: On 8/03/09 10:36, in article
, "chemist"

wrote:
Why does it stop in 2005? surely the have later data.

Maybe not fully collected and published, In science one is
often a couple of years behind by the time one publishes
a paper (roughly it takes a year to prepare a paper and
9 months between submittal and final appearance.

*The worst case scenario I experienced recently. I submitted to a
journal, received back editor's comments, reworked paper, it went to
the referees, reworked again to incorporate referees comments.

At which point the journal's editor changed. The new editor and his
panel decided on a fresh approach for the subject matter covered by
the journal, and would not accept that his predecessor had agreed to
publish my work. Start over with different journal, different editor,
different referees - so different comments and more reworking.
Referees and editor proposed splitting into two shorter papers. Split
into two papers and resubmitted.

Now the real killer. The editor changed on the second journal
meanwhile, and the new editor thought my work was better as a single
paper!! *Eventually the process resulted in acceptance, but there was
still a backlog of papers to pass through ahead of mine.Total time to
publication 6+ years.

Chemist, tell us, have you ever published a paper in
a peer review journal?

Most of the time Tom can't even string together a coherent sentence on
alt g-w. How could he be expected to publish in a respectable journal?

I have tried, but of course they do not publish articles:
that prove that experiments purporting to demonstrate
that CO2 is a greenhouse gas are a travesty,or
that the increase in CO2 is more correlated with
the Sea surface temperatures than Emissions,or
that the concentration of CO2 in the sea depends mainly
on its temperature and its salinity which leads to the
conclusion that it is not becoming acidified.
I suffer from censorship I do not get a chance to
modify my papers I just get rejected out of hand.

On Mar 8, 2:36*am, chemist wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:54*pm, rich wrote:





On Mar 6, 12:07*pm, Catoni wrote:

On Mar 6, 12:23*pm, Dave wrote:

Accuweatherhttp://global-warming.accuweather.com/2009/03/northern_fringes_of_ice...

"The northern fringes of Greenland's ice sheet
experienced much higher the normal melting
during 2008, according to NASA researchers."

David Christainsen - Meteorologist

And Alaska and much of Canada had a much colder and wetter summer then
usual in 2008 as has been mentioned many times in the group with
Alaska glciers advancing for a change.

Also MORON GO HERE

http://ak.water.usgs.gov/glaciology/...er_balance.htm

Why does it stop in 2005? surely the have later data.
I suppose the later data does not confirm warming
but indicates cooling, so it is omitted.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Maybe maybe not it remains to be see. I wouldn't hold my breath
though if I believed the stupidity you believe