Posted on 09/05/2007 8:29:44 AM PDT by AT7Saluki
In fact, as reported by Sacramento's CBS affiliate Sunday, glaciers on California's Mount Shasta have grown by 30 percent in the past 50 years (video available here):
JOHN IANDER, CBS 13 REPORTER: Big mountains often create their own weather patterns, and this giant, Mount Shasta, at 14,162 feet seems to have a mind of its own these days. Shasta has seven glaciers. The biggest is this one on the middle, Whitney Glacier. What has surprised scientists about the glacier is that if the theories about global warming are true, it ought to be shrinking, but it's not.
And this one sort of defying conventional wisdom huh?
ERIK WHITE, SCIENTIST: It is. Unlike most areas around the world, these glaciers are advancing, they are growing. Thirty percent in the last fifty years.
IANDER: Forest Service scientist Erik White and veteran climbing guide Chris Carr are Shasta experts.
CHRIS CARR: I've been climbing on Shasta for about fifteen years.
IANDER: Have you noticed a difference in snowfall?
CARR: Oh, certainly. Every year it's a little bit different. But the glacier changes dramatically, year to year.
IANDER: So why are these glaciers the only ice rivers in the world larger today than they were a century or more ago?
WHITE: Mount Shasta is right at the very northern end of areas affected by El Nino and we're at the southern end of areas affected by La Nina. So between the two we get to see the benefits of that which means more snow and rain in this area.
What White said is key, because many skeptical scientists believe shifts between el Ninos and la Ninas are significantly more responsible for the planet's warming and cooling cycles than carbon dioxide emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
That's huge! Solid evidence of Climate Change! We must de-industrialize NOW!
OK, boys and girls, can you spot the bias in this question?
ONLY glaciers growing?
Not true: About half the glaciers worldwide are growing, about half are retreating.
Same as usual.
ping for later
Depends,...the same argument is held regarding some ice packs in the Antarctic, where the temperature never rises above freezing.
If global temperatures rise, there will be greater amounts of water vapor evaporated from the oceans, then passed over the Antarctic continent, where they consense and precipitate over the ice pack as snow.
Accordingly, when scientists measured the icepack and determined the more recent annual layers of snow and ice were less thick than older years’, they had proof that global temperatures over waters beneath wind currents approaching the Antarctic had actually decreased.
The Global Warming proponents were mistakenly using the data as evidence of global warming, whereas it actually gave evidence of the opposite effect.
Now in this case, the glacial ice is reportedly increasing in size, merely indicating a larger amount of precipitation is being directed at the glacier.
The next step is to study the historical wind patterns, and as the article implies, the El Nino/La Nina effect predominated over those factors, reducing the linkage to global warming.
Besides, we all know it’s Karl and his weather machine anyways, so what’s the fuss all about? <8^0
The glaciers that have formed on Mount St. Helens after its eruption in 1980 are also growing.
Climate Change is also known as weather.
Wait a day and it will change. Guaranteed!
Man can hardly predict the weather beyond 3 or 4 days with any accuracy. Any predictions beyond that time frame are supposition and completely left to chance.
How many times has a forecast predicted rain that hasn’t happened. Or a snowstorm that went way north or way south?
We know summer is hot. winter is cold. It don’t take a scientist on the public dollar to tell us what the weather is going to do.
Small Glaciers In Northern California Buck Global Warming Trend
"Despite regional warming over the past few decades, Shasta’s glaciers did not recede because of increased winter snow accumulation and a strengthened correlation with wet El Niño phases. In terms of sensitivity, Howat et al. found that a 20% increase in precipitation would offset a 1 C increase in temperature."
Nice comment by Cvengr on this.
I climbed Mt. Shasta. More worrisome than the glaciers is the lack of oxygen near the summit.
Not just bias — ignorance.
While I think it would be neat to climb a high mountain, the uncertain prospect of pulmonary edema always bothers me. I don’t know about Shasta, but it can happen on Rainier. Plus I’d have to get my legs in MUCH better shape. Bottom line: I’ll leave it to others.
ping
One thing’s for certain. Mountains don’t get any more beautiful than Mt. Shasta. Every time I see it I think of God.
Did you meet any of the aliens that live inside the mountain?
http://www.ufoarea.com/aas_mtshasta.html
http://www.mslpublishing.com/about-mt-shasta.htm
My son spent some time near there, and he was amazed at the dingbats that actually believe people live inside the mountain....:^)
You are way too kind.
I will leave it to others, whose only possibility for attention and for their 15 minutes of "fame" is to do something pointless and mindless.
For those in Rio Linda, let me clarify that, that would not include real scientists gathering historical and current scientific knowledge about the history and development of our Earth.
They're not. Most glaciers in the world are growing.
Watch the Sun, and right now it’s quiet as a church mouse, and been that way for some time now. Ponder the Maunder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.