Glaciers in Norway, Alaska, growing again

A glacial region in Norway (Source: NRK)
Reposted from the DailyTech
By: Mike Asher

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.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Perry Debell
November 27, 2008 11:12 pm

Can someone remind me? Just how think was the ice over central Europe 20,000 years ago? I’ll bet the Wurm glacial started with a little more snow and a slow advance of glaciers. On a balance of probabilities, the present Interglacial has to end some time. Why not now?

Stefan of Perth WA
November 27, 2008 11:53 pm

No matter. Glaciers both growing and shrinking are proof of global warming. Not forgetting that glaciers in a state of equilibrium are also proof of global warming.
Me? I’m stocking up on Ugg boots and thermal underwear.

Freezing Finn
November 28, 2008 12:14 am

“Good” news for the truth – bad news for people having to live up here in North…

November 28, 2008 12:38 am

Hmm, this would disprove global warming, given normal logic. However, in AGW logic anything contrary to their “evidence” is just natural variation. And all of the sudden glaciers extents are controlled by a number of variables, where temperature is only one of them. Shrinking glaciers are of course only due to warmer temperatures. To say anything to the contrary would be denialist to say the least. After all thooousands of scientists say so…
Anyway, AGW religion took a huge hit some time ago when some fellows from the BBC(none the less) decided to drive a car to the North-Pole to disprove global warming. And considering that the kayak expedition ended just north of Svalbard with frostbites all over their @$$es. This should be damning evidence to say the least.

November 28, 2008 1:56 am

And solar activity is quiet as a mouse.
Let’s see how many spotless days we can rack up this time.

D. Quist
November 28, 2008 2:12 am

Are there any that are growing in the Pacific Northwest? I would love to point that out to the local Seattle AGWs.
I’m itching to ask an unrelated question about CO2. If I built two greenhouses with no plants or anything in them, both with same humidity. One with 385ppm of C02 and one with say 450ppm. What would the temperature difference be? What if I manipulated the CO2. The following article at ICECAP got me thinking about this.
What if I modified the experiment and put a pond that covered 70% of the area inside the greenhouse. Based on some of the AGW, I should get a runaway greenhouse effect, perhaps, due to positive feedback? Now, I know this is simplistic and as usual I am a very hasty person, with simple ideas. But there should be predictions that says what would happen that could be tested?
Any references on such an experiment?
Either way, I might just go down to the store, get some dry ice, drag out a couple of plastic jugs, stick my handy remote temp sensors and see for myself…. I just won’t know what the CO2ppm would be… Probably 50,000ppm. The jug should melt on a rainy day in Seattle….
One day this might be the science experiment that all students use to debunk AGW?

November 28, 2008 2:13 am

“says the growth is “a bit of an anomaly”, but not to be unexpected.”
Oh its one of those expected anomalies then!

November 28, 2008 2:23 am

The glaciers in Norway had a major increase in the 1990’s, it’s quite obvious that the Norwegian glaciers might be “disturbed” by the 10 year ocean cycle (NAO). Mass balance observations of maritime glaciers in southern Norway also show an overall increase over the last 50 years. Engabreen, a part of the Svartisen glacier in northern Norway also have an increase over the last 50 years. The source of these observations is the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate (NVE). Therefore, I find the 1982 comparing a bit odd. This “information” has been published in several Norwegian newspapers over the last few days. The first observation of mass balance of glaciers started in 1949, and since 1963 we have observations of 5 major glaciers. Why not use 1963?
If we take a look at the glaciers front position, there are observations even longer back. For example had Briksdalsbreen, an arm of the Jostedalsbreen glacier, a decrease of 800m from 1934 to 1951. That’s a huge change. The last decades decrease has been approx 500m, and the speed has surprised the scientists. Well, it doesn’t surprise me. That scientists are surprised or that the glaciers had such a decrease.

Leon Brozyna
November 28, 2008 2:31 am

And here in the U.S. the glaciers in Glacier National Park are retreating so rapidly that they’ll be gone in approximately a dozen years, at least according to a “news” piece on ABC News. They compared current photos to those from around the 1880’s. Of course they neglected to mention that the older photos were taken near the end of the Little Ice Age. Should the climate cool over the next few years {or decades} and precipitation patterns dump more snow on the glaciers and they expand it’ll probably also be dismissed as an anomaly. And the beat goes on…

November 28, 2008 3:20 am

Glacier advance and retreat is a function of precipitation, and has nothing to do with a variation in global temperatures of a fraction of a degree C, when the ambient temperature is well below 0 degrees C.
On a related subject: click

November 28, 2008 12:47 pm

D Quist; you’ll find a nifty greenhouse experiment over at David Stockwell’s blog, Niche Modelling, under the threads, ‘Model of Global Warming’ and ‘Greenhouse Quiz’;

Steven Hill
November 28, 2008 5:20 am

The sky is burning, the world is on fire….do do todo dum

November 28, 2008 5:28 am

This recent reversal doesn’t surprise me – and whenever any AGW protagonists talk of accelerated melting and trends over the last ten or twenty years, get them to look at the last 5 years for the turnaround – whether glaciers, sea-ice cover, or sea-level – take a look for example at
Hanna, E. and J. Cappelen (2003), Recent cooling in coastal southern Greenland and relation with the North Atlantic Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., 30, 1132, doi:10.1029/2002GL015797.
Hanna E., P. Huybrechts, I. Janssens, J. Cappelen, K. Steffen, and A. Stephens (2005), Runoff and mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet: 1958-2003, J. Geophys. Res., 110, D13108, doi:10.1029/2004JD005641.
Hanna, E., J. McConnell, S. Das, J. Cappelen, and A. Stephens (2006), Observed and modeled Greenland ice sheet snow accumulation, 1958-2003, and links with regional climate forcing, J. Clim., 19, 344-358.
There are signs in Greenland, according to Hanna, of the glacier speeds returning to ‘normal’ and the ice-mass balance to positive. I expect the trends for the 15% of Antarctica that shows a small warming signal, will also have shifted but I haven’t looked yet in detail.
Just tried copying in a graph which didn’t transfer – but if one googles Univ of Colorado sea-level data (TOPEX and JASON) – you can see the shift for global sea level at 2006 – where it levels off after long rise.
I am currently learning a lot from studying the global satellite links that Anthony has – and watching the way clouds and storm tracks follow the standing waves of the jetstream – which has shifted since 2006 (when the sun went quiet) – you can see quite clearly where heat (and moisture) is extracted from and where it is precipitated – currently from northern Pacific in the American NW including Alaska, from western Atlantic into Iceland and Norway, then an uploop from Arabia takes heat into central Siberia – which is why the ducks, geese and swans can’t be bothered to move west. In the summer of 2007 and 2008 the jetstream shifted south and the wave moved eastward, with Britain getting the uploop instead of the downloop and we got torrential rain and floods (and Norway dried out in sunshine!).
People may already know this – so forgive me, but Drew Shindell at NASA published papers on how he suspected the jetstream had shifted similarly during the Maunder MInimum and linked it to a cascade of solar UV effects on the polar vortex – I think this could be the key mechanism for linking solar changes (Leif – I am still not convinced the solar magnetics didn’t change – what about the UV during the spotless cycle?) to climate shifts.
Shindell D.T., et al., (2001) Solar forcing of regional climate change during
the Maunder Minimum. Science, 294(5549), 2149–2152.
happy hunting!

November 28, 2008 5:38 am

This would normally be great news, but they have already said that growing glaciers are a sure sign of global warming…

November 28, 2008 5:57 am

“Global cooling proof of global warming”:
This problem was adressed by the team at the UK Tyndall Centre back in 2004: Working Paper 58 – The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change
To endorse policy change people must ‘believe’ that global warming will become a reality some time in the future.
· Only the experience of positive temperature anomalies will be registered as indication of change if the issue is framed as global warming.
· Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as indication of change if the issue is framed as climate change.
· We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.
I guess it worked…..

Tim Clark
November 28, 2008 6:03 am

Freezing Finn (00:14:29) :
“Good” news for the truth – bad news for people having to live up here in North…

After visiting one of your “neighborhood” spas while on my Chevy Chase European Family Vacation two or was it three years ago, I’m having difficulty feeling sorry for you!! Be thankful you don’t live in Barcelona, where I was “furloughed” for three days while the local ground crew went on strike (riot?). According to Spanish Air, my wife’s lost luggage in Spain is considered an act of God.

November 28, 2008 7:13 am

Glaciers advance when the climate cools–surprise, surprise! Now that we have entered the 30-yr cool cycle in the PDO, we can expect to see the same kind of glacier advances that occurred from 1880 to 1915 and from 1945 to 1977. It’s all part of the natural 30-yr warm/cool cycle that we’ve seen for the past 500 years.

Jeff Alberts
November 28, 2008 7:42 am

Leon Brozyna (02:31:23) :

And here in the U.S. the glaciers in Glacier National Park are retreating so rapidly that they’ll be gone in approximately a dozen years, at least according to a “news” piece on ABC News. They compared current photos to those from around the 1880’s. Of course they neglected to mention that the older photos were taken near the end of the Little Ice Age. Should the climate cool over the next few years {or decades} and precipitation patterns dump more snow on the glaciers and they expand it’ll probably also be dismissed as an anomaly. And the beat goes on…

They also fail to mention that the vast majority of the glacial retreat in GNP occurred before the 1950s.

November 28, 2008 8:07 am

Peter Taylor:
Is this the graph you’re looking for?

November 28, 2008 8:11 am

[sarcasm on] No, no people. Remember the “correct” newspeak term is Climate Change! Any ecosystem change is caused by humans! [sarcasm off]

Pamela Gray
November 28, 2008 8:27 am

Your experiment sans plants and people idea reminds me of these: If a tree falls in the forest, does it still make a sound? And this: If a bear takes a dump in the forest, does it smell just as bad? If there were no people around to wring their hands of climate change, would the animals start blaming each other?

November 28, 2008 8:40 am

re.: S.M (02:23:09),
do you have links to data sources?
Would like to have them?
Thanks ahead.

Harold Ambler
November 28, 2008 8:52 am

OT: I have seen at least one paper indicating corruption of ice core air bubbles by liquid water, allowing C02 to dissolve, and thus undermining the claim that the Holocene has never seen C02 levels in the current range.
Taking as a given, just for the sake of argument, that there is nothing new under the Sun and that most, if not all, of the pronouncements about historic firsts, including high C02 in the last 12,000 years, are suspect, does anyone know anything about previous coral die-offs, during the Holocene or before, caused by acidification/C02?

Pierre Gosselin
November 28, 2008 9:15 am

Yet, I keep hearing from some institutes, e.g. Potsdam PIK, that climate change is occuring faster than even what the models predicted.

Pierre Gosselin
November 28, 2008 9:23 am

Don Easterbrook,
Could you elaborate on what you expect from this PDO cycle? Do you expect it to be somewhat benign. or rather severe? What data should we be looking at to get a clue? Sunspot activity is still awfully quiet and some are predicting some sort of Minimum to occur over the next couple of decades.
Also the latest NOAA SST chart shows a cooling equatorial east Pacific, especially when compared to charts from a couple months ago.

Pierre Gosselin
November 28, 2008 9:37 am

Peter Taylor,
I found the report abstract by our friends Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann and others that you mention above.
They state in it:
“Global average temperature changes are small (about 0.3° to 0.4°C) in both a climate model and empirical reconstructions. However, regional temperature changes are quite large.”
I though Mann’s proxies were bristlecones on land and regional with his reconstructions not showing 1-2°C fluctuations. And how can he make the above statement with no real ocean data records from back then?

November 28, 2008 10:20 am

I pointed this out on another forum and our esteemed “expert” on Climate Change told me that of course the glaciers are increasing in size – more warming = more precipitation = more snow = bigger glacier! I’m afraid it’s impossible to win this argument. You might as well close your blog right now.

Douglas DC
November 28, 2008 10:47 am

I have a little tale to tell about Glacier.Back in my other life, I was a Co-pilot
on an Airtanker. DC-7,3000 gal retardant load. Back in 1996,I was based in Winslow Az. It had been quiet,we weren’t allowed to play with the big fire up
near Santa Fe in the Sangre’ De Christos… So I washed the Airplane,and watched the whole of The Aero Union,TBM,and Neptune fleets overfly Winslow.Finally near quitting time,6 pm., We get a call:”Go to the Pine Complex!??” Huh? It was out some days before with just some mopup going on. Well, we figgured that something must’ve got away,sooo,off we go. We get to the sea of black that was the Fire.In the middle, there is an island of green,with a smoke curing up.We were told by air attack to:” drop on the edge of the black” as if it was going any where,Ok, so we and the Alamogordo tanker did that.”Go home!” so back to Winslow. Some 200 or so air miles-loved that trip in the evening,
We went right over Monument valley and John Ford Country. We land,service the airplane with one of those Georgia O’Keefe sunsets from the wing of a DC-7 It was a good night. Getting to the Motel I turned on the TV-on the News as this breathless reporter,extolling the the virtues of the the Heroic Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, fighting the Global Warming caused
fire with his new Pulaski and freshly washed yellow Nomex. A photo op…
Now fast forward to late June,early July-just before the Monsoon season in the Southwest.We’d been working a nasty fire up near Sunset Crater,near the San Francisco Peaks,the Horseshoe complex.Nasty place to work,turbulence,
up and downdrafts,and, as an added bonus, it was UP everywhere,no real
easy way out of that caldera if you lost an engine or couldn’t get rid of your load.Now,that fire went out.As with all big fires,it went out mostly on it’s own. Usually due to the following:it ran out of things to burn,the wind quit
blowing and it rained on it.Ok, we were at Winslow,thankful we’d never go back to that hellhole of a fire again.The clanger goes off:”Load for the Horseshoe complex!” Ok. We launch.We got over the same scene as before:
an Island of green and a sea of black.Except.This is now in the bottom of the Sunset caldera,and the nearest green is a good mile from the Island.”Drop half
in and half out!” Ok.So we do.Now in this mess which now has heavy helicopters,news choppers,Three heavy Airtankers(including ours) D-8 Cats,
Pumpers and-Bruce Babbitt.Upon hearing that,the Air Attack,and the Leadplane Pilot in unison said-“What? this is a photo op,and a waste of Taxpayer’s money-we’re calling the Airshow off!””GO HOME!”-so we did.
now later there were repercussions to that AIr Attack and Lead Pilot,but they
didn’t get fired.Now it is Mid August-the fire trail leads to Billings, Mont.
One of my fave tanker bases. It was slow day, nightly news was on.There with a straight face, was Babbitt.At Glacier. In a suit. Standing in front of a Terminal Morane,with the following signs: 1889,1914,1935,1950,1996.
(ignoring a run of that glacier in the 20’s.)Babbitt then gives us a sermon.
Sort of a “Sinners in the hands of an angry Gaia .” Pointing the bony finger of accusation at US unwashed,it is our Ford SUV’s and Chevy Pickups that are killing the planet!Let’s put it this way.It was exquisite in it’s Irony….

Pierre Gosselin
November 28, 2008 11:15 am
David Corcoran
November 28, 2008 11:38 am

Yet, I keep hearing from some institutes, e.g. Potsdam PIK, that climate change is occuring faster than even what the models predicted.
Do they mean global warming or global cooling? I don’t know what “climate change” is supposed to mean.

November 28, 2008 11:53 am

May I ask? You know how everything is green this, green that and that by being green we will help the planet.
Wouldn’t the ‘green’ in greenhouse gas suggest that we ARE being green?
And the lunacy continues.

anna v
November 28, 2008 12:03 pm

Good to hear of this. Maybe Kivalina will stop eroding:
After another storm forced an evacuation of the island in the fall of 2007, you might say that Kivalina reached the end of its rope. Which is why, on February 26, 2008, this community of 400 Native Americans filed suit in federal court against 24 oil, electricity, and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, British Petroleum, Chevron, and Shell. Demanding up to $400 million in damages-the estimated cost of moving the village out of reach of the rising sea-the lawsuit accuses the companies of contributing to global warming and creating a public nuisance that has harmed property in the town.
It’s an audacious move-after all, even snowmobile-using Kivalinans bear some responsibility for climate change. But the lawsuit goes further, charging that some of the corporations “conspired to create a false scientific debate about global warming in order to deceive the public.”

The article of course considers global warming a fact.

November 28, 2008 1:20 pm

One of the most interesting climate related discoveries in recent years is that the Earth’s rotation isn’t slowing down as fast as it should. The only explanation is ice accumulation at the poles. Ice accumulation tends to increase the speed of rotation of the Earth by shifting mass closer to the poles, in the same way an ice skater spins faster when they pull their arms closer to their body.
Guess when this started?

November 28, 2008 1:26 pm

Nice pictures of advancing glaciers in New Zealand.
Note, this information is 2 or 3 years old. I have been unable to find current data. Advancing glaciers are obviously not of interest.

L Gardy Roche
November 28, 2008 1:27 pm

Speaking of growing ice,
The National Ice Center ,, contains animations of Snow cover and Ice for the Northern Hemisphere.

Michael J. Bentley
November 28, 2008 1:41 pm

Douglas DC,
Thanks for a hands-on picture perfect pilots view of what you guys go through.
And still in my minds eye I see this old DC-6 diving (DIVING!) on a fire just off the Amtrac tracks in California. Picture Perfect drop – throttles max and that old piece of iron climbed like a lark!

November 28, 2008 2:46 pm

While a lot of folks get worked up about glacial advance/retreat trends, I think that’s interesting, but what’s the bottom line? – ocean level variations.
Lately, it’s been 1.4 mm/year. Over the next hundred years, that’s 6 inches increase. Yet since the last Ice Age, ocean levels have risen 400 feet (48 inches per century). That sounds like a disproportionate change. And yes, I understand the impact of a graduated elevation of the low-sloped edge-of-the-bathtub influence impact on sea level change (i.e., more water into a bathtub with flat-sloped perimeters yields lower increases in depth per gallon contributed to the tub).
But at some point, when do the predictions of catastrophe end and reality intrudes??

F Rasmin
November 28, 2008 2:54 pm

This article in todays ‘The Australian ‘ newspaper is unusual in that it presents (allows) controversy over supposed Climate Change’. It is entitled ‘Cold snap fails to cool protagonists of global warming’. Here is the link:,25197,24723425-11949,00.html

November 28, 2008 3:27 pm

I’ve read a few references to glacial coverage being as low 6,000 to 7,000 years ago as it is now. Not bad, no change over several millennia.
I’ve collected some of them together and stretched the timeframe to 5,000 to 7,000 years.
If anyone has other nice links that fit or reasons behind that glacial retreat, let me know here or through Email.

November 28, 2008 3:38 pm

So whats new, F Rasmin. ABC and Fairfax media are essentially junk. Contrary evidence is presented as “the southern ocean adapting to climate change”. Hilarious.

Greg Spurgin
November 28, 2008 3:40 pm

Another article in an Australian Newspaper the Sydney Morning Herald, critical of the Global Warming Religion. What is interesting is firstly that the SMH even published it – they are very pro human AGW, but secondly this Saturday morning in Australia it is the most watched article on SMH. A sign I think that the sceptics are on the rise.

November 28, 2008 4:36 pm

I think I have located the original NVEreport.
It has a graph of the glacier length change here, it would be nice if this could be added as a visual aid to the article above. 14kB PDF here.
To quote:

Results 2008
Thirty-two glaciers were measured in 2008, eight glaciers in North-Norway, and twenty-four glaciers in South-Norway. Twenty-four glaciers retreated.
Fåbergstølsbreen in Jostedalen in Luster retreated 60 meters, and Brenndalsbreen in Stryn retreated 56 meters. Bondhusbrea, a western outlet from Folgefonna ice cap in Kvinherad retreated 50 meters. At three glaciers the measurements indicated advance. This is partly adjustments to relatively large changes last year. Five glaciers had only minor changes (+/- 2 meters). Mean annual length change was 14 meters. Measurements were resumed at three glaciers – Tunsbergdalsbreen in Jostedalen which was monitored between 1900 and 1965, and Trollkyrkjebreen (measured 1944 – 1974) and Finnanbreen (measured 1950-1974) at Trollstigen in Møre & Romsdal.

Harold Ambler
November 28, 2008 5:39 pm

Peter Taylor, when I try to visit your website I get a malware warning from my mac. Have you heard that before? I would like to be able to e-mail you; my address is
Back to the discussion, as more than one person has recently pointed out, it is amazing how little good data there are at present in re ocean heat content and sea levels, among other items on the list. I’m not saying there is, but it’s as though there is a cabal.
There is no other area of wide public interest where the disconnect between the best of the blogs and the MSM is as great as climate. Thanks as always to Anthony.

Don B
November 28, 2008 5:55 pm

More on Glacier National Park. Figure 6.D shows that of the Sperry Glacier shrinkage between 1850 and 2003, 80.6% of that shrinkage had occurred by 1945.

Will Small
November 28, 2008 6:11 pm

Hello again,
Just trying to understand how this article adds up to global cooling? I don’t see it and I’m sure the good folks here at WUWT can help as you have on the other threads.
You’ve probably followed the fallout on Politico over Erika Lovley’s article “Scientists urge caution on global warming”
Naturally, there’s been a huge backlash over her attempt to push forward the GC theory.
The author relies on the work of Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist (meteorology is the study of weather, not climate). D’Aleo’s lack of qualifications in climate science would be less relevant if he had published his work on “global cooling” in peer-reviewed scientific journals rather than the Farmers Almanac.
From the letter to the editor written by Russ Walker and David Roberts of Grist Magazine in response to the original article. Walker and Roberts write:
” While reasonable people may debate the value of cap-and-trade legislation, and it is certainly worth reporting on how its congressional opponents are strategizing to block it, it is simply false to point to a “growing accumulation” of evidence rendering basic climate science “shaky.” There is no such accumulation; there is no such science. If there were, perhaps the author would have cited some of it — it is telling that she did not.”
Politico acknowledges their error in publishing the original article and now recants. The editor writes:
“Giving voice to the losing side of a national debate is often fraught with peril. It requires navigating a terrain littered with grudges, slights, insults and hard feelings.
To do that without becoming ensnared requires extraordinary care. In Politico’s case, we slipped.”
I just don’t get how this glacier post in any way shape or form somehow indicates that GW is slowing rather than accelerating?

November 28, 2008 6:15 pm

very good if the glacier growing again….

Harold Ambler
November 28, 2008 7:29 pm

Hey Will. What you have described is a major U.S. news organization sounding about as cowed as TASS under Leonyd Brezhnev. I recommend that you enjoy the apex of your side’s power. It will never reach this point again.
And while the billions underpinning AGW may be capable of silencing CNN, they will not silence me.

November 28, 2008 7:35 pm

I just don’t get how this glacier post in any way shape or form somehow indicates that GW is slowing rather than accelerating?
Will Small, the IPCC and many others cite retreating glaciers as clear evidence of Global Warming.
While there are multiple factors at work in glacier advance/retreat, it is clear that many ‘short response’ (glaciers that respond fastest to changes that cause advance/retreat) glaciers are now advancing. This is clearly the case in New Zealand.
Either, glaciers are not good indicators of climate change over periods up to a couple of decades and the IPCC and others are wrong, or glaciers are advancing due to climate cooling.
Take your pick.
Otherwise re the article at Politico, the global warming establishment uses unethical and frankly immoral tactics to suppress legitimate debate.

Richard M
November 28, 2008 7:40 pm

Will, did you read Al Gore’s quote? That should be enough to make you think twice.

November 28, 2008 7:48 pm

I’ve read a few references to glacial coverage being as low 6,000 to 7,000 years ago as it is now.
We know from multiple sources that the Holocene Maximum (or Holocene Optimum) was warmer than today. No one really disputes this, including the likes of Hansen.
The Warming Lobby hardly ever mentions the Holocene Maximum because it makes a mockery of the climate tipping point argument. If such a tipping point exists then the Holocene Maximum would have passed it and been much warmer than it was and of course we would still be much warmer.

November 28, 2008 8:05 pm

I read the Politico article – Scientists: Earth is still heating up
The article would be laughable if the topic wasn’t so serious, because of the enormous amounts of money being spent.
Only 2 pieces of data are presented to ‘prove’ the still warming case. Neither of which show warming has continued over the last 10 years. Neither piece of data shows warming has occured over the last 100 years for that matter.
One is the US surface station record, which this blog documents the numerous problems with.
The other is floods are increasing too. Recorded small floods are increasing, but this is a reporting increase due to better measurement and record keeping. Severe floods have declined over the last 30 years.
The rest of the article is models, predictions and rhetoric.
All they can muster is 2 pieces of know bad data to support their claim of a still warming climate. Beyond laughable.

Jeff Alberts
November 28, 2008 8:16 pm

Wiill Small said:

Just trying to understand how this article adds up to global cooling? I don’t see it and I’m sure the good folks here at WUWT can help as you have on the other threads.

It doesn’t, any more than retreating glaciers means global warming.

November 28, 2008 8:56 pm

Jeff Alberts,
Well said.
What do you guys think of this quote
Ed Josberger, a glaciologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, says the growth is “a bit of an anomaly”, but not to be unexpected.
The word that I picked out was anomaly. How bald faced can they be.

November 28, 2008 8:58 pm

The glacier on Mt. Shasta has been growing the past several years. They blame it on a ‘localized’ moisture pattern which has put a lot more snow on it.
If that’s what it takes to grow glaciers, the retreat of most others is simply saying that the rate of moisture dumping on the glaciers has gone down.

Ron H
November 28, 2008 9:13 pm

A remark I have seen three times this month is:
“The current La Niña event, characterized by a cooling of the sea surface in the central and eastern Equatorial Pacific, is a “climate anomaly” part of natural climate variability. This La Niña started in the third quarter of 2007 and is likely to persist through to the middle of 2008. It has influenced climate patterns during the last six months across many parts of the globe, including in the Equatorial Pacific, across the Indian Ocean, Asia, Africa and the Americas.”
The implication seems to be, yes, it has cooled since 1998, but that is only because el Nino made it warmer then and la Nina is making it cooler now, if those effects weren’t present, there would have been continuing global warming this decade.
Has anyone investigated this slant?

November 28, 2008 9:37 pm

Will Small: Go to and read what Maurice Strong and others want to befall most of humanity. Then ask yourself if you would want your children to ask you how you could shill for such mega-death murderous monsters.

November 28, 2008 9:58 pm

Will Small (18:11:29) :

You’ve probably followed the fallout on Politico over Erika Lovley’s article “Scientists urge caution on global warming”

The author relies on the work of Joseph D’Aleo, a meteorologist (meteorology is the study of weather, not climate). D’Aleo’s lack of qualifications in climate science would be less relevant if he had published his work on “global cooling” in peer-reviewed scientific journals rather than the Farmers Almanac.

Wow, you’re exactly the the target audience Politco was looking for. You read everything between the lines exactly as they wanted you to.
Climatology used to be about collecting weather statistics and publishing data about the average weather. Most of the people who are doing the most to advance the many aspects of climate science are not pure climatologists. James Hansen, for example, has a MS in Astronomy and a PhD in Physics. Some of the scientists who do the best job at keeping climatologists grounded are geologists, their longterm view of the world is something that most other scientists do not share.
In general, I’ve concluded that people who leap to criticize people’s degrees do not understand education. In my case, I have an electrical engineering degree, but my career and skills are in software engineering. The skills I learned in EE courses are quite relevant in other engineering fields too. BTW, don’t hire me as in electrical engineer, you’ll be disappointed.
Politco only mentioned D’Aleo’s Old Farmers Almanac article. My guess is that their staff climatologists (their reporters do have climatology degrees, right?) missed Joe’s many scientific papers to focus on what’s probably his most read and accessible article. The OFA schedule makes it a bit dated, but it’s still good, see .
Joe, by the way, is one of the folks responsible for me being here. We both live in New Hampshire, and our paths have crossed various times. He’s kept the faith in pushing the “there’s more to it that CO2” point of view for a long time including the warming periods before 1998, and I really respect his dedication. I gave up on the field waiting for the current solar minimum or a change to the cool phase of the PDO or AMO.
His work showing there is a better corellation between those circulation patterns and temperature than there is between CO2 and temperature pretty much convinced me that while CO2 may be the biggest thing we have influence on, it’s not big enough to warrant extreme measures like CO2 sequestration at power plants.
Please read for more about that subject.

I just don’t get how this glacier post in any way shape or form somehow indicates that GW is slowing rather than accelerating?

Because over the long term, colder weather corellates with glacier growth. People who point to Mt Shasta’s glacier growth as being due to warming bringing moist air and hence increase precipitation may be right in the short term, but in the long term, the elevation of glacial termina is more likely to be controlled by temperature.
Page 2 of has an equation used to determine the “Equilibrium Line Altitude.” It has a temperature-squared term which means winter precip has to increase a lot to balance the summer melting.
It also helps explain why the Juneau Icefield growth this year was so dramatic, they had a cold summer.
As we get further into the cold PDO phase we can expect to see more effects and more clear effects.

Phil B
November 28, 2008 9:59 pm

I can prove that it is impossible for humans to cause global warming in one sentence.
If it were possible, the AGW crowd would be hastily doing it to make global temperatures fit their failed models.

November 28, 2008 10:09 pm

Ron H (21:13:49) :
The implication seems to be, yes, it has cooled since 1998, but that is only because el Nino made it warmer then and la Nina is making it cooler now, if those effects weren’t present, there would have been continuing global warming this decade.
Has anyone investigated this slant?
Yes, see my previous post. The cool PDO that we entered in 2007 should have more La Nina periods than during the warm PDO. (And we should have fewer El Ninos.) The warm PDO may have reached a saturation point eventually where it couldn’t bring more warmth to the planet, but it seems to flip before the planet reaches that point.
If you try to adjust out the effects of the PDO phases, then you may still have a warming trend that reaches back well before CO2 levels increased dramatically. That may just be the continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age. Alternatively, you get something like Bill Illis’s which shows an increase due to CO2.

November 28, 2008 10:33 pm

Here is a climbing report for Mt Shuksan, which is a glaciated peak in Mount Baker national park. Report here.
Condition reports come from climbing and wilderness rangers, the voluntary climbing register, and other climbers.
Several of the climbers reported open and obvious crevasses. All of them reported snow cover throughout the summer.
Glacier crevasses are a symptom of growth. As the ice slides over large rocks rocks it cracks.

Terry Ward
November 29, 2008 1:04 am
(There used to be more mentions of this but Winston Smith is catching up fast)
The gist of it:
9000 ft above sea level in a Swiss mountain pass a glacier in retreat has exposed some human artefacts.
300 objects dating as far back as the Neolithic, to the later Bronze and Iron Ages and the Roman and Medieval eras have been found in the site’s former icefields.
So I guess the pass has been open a few times (coincidentally, those exact periods that the infamous “hockey stick” was contrived to refute) and men and women made their way, in shorts and sandals, from one side of the mountains to the other, and back again sans SUV.
What goes around….

Perry Debell
November 29, 2008 1:08 am

Pierre Gosselin (11:15:24) :
Thank you for that link. An excellent 9+ minutes of explanation of why the Greenlanders died out.

Pierre Gosselin
November 29, 2008 2:00 am

Will Small,
You asked the question:
“Just trying to understand how this article adds up to global cooling?”
Answer: It doesn’t. It only means this particular region most likely has gotten more preciptitation over the last years. Glaciers have much more to do with precipitation and less with temperatures. Both sides please take note!
And I agree that hand-picked anecdotes have nothing to do with climate trends. While the warmists say that Region A’s hot spell from LAST month is yet another sign of a warming world, coolists later say that Region A’s unusual cold weather THIS month is a sign of cooling. Both sides are completely full of it.
The reason why I am a sceptic is because of the following:
1. Climate has always changed during history.
2. The current warming started more than 150 years ago.
3. Many changes were far more dramatic than the 1978 -1998 temp 0.6°C rise.
4. Global temps have decreased in the last 10 years.
5. Sea levels have stagnated.
6. CO2 is just one (minor) factor of many.
7. AGW theory assumes that all other factors like sun, oceans etc. have all gone dormant, and all changes can be attributed to CO2 – preposterous.
8. Many AGW “cilmate scientists” have long lost their credibility by resorting to science shenanigans and neurotic alarmism, e.g. AIT, Mann curve, etc..
9. The AGW theory has no consensus. NONE.
10. CO2 has always lagged temp.
These are just to name a few.
No. I’m not going to run with the masses of AGW-spooked in a stampede of panicked madness. The recent (last 10 years) data show that a more rational and calmer reaction is in order, and that the doomsday scenarios were grotesquely and irresponsibly overblown.

Pierre Gosselin
November 29, 2008 2:08 am

Please allow me to modify my statement:
“Glaciers have much more to do with precipitation and less with temperatures.”
Let me just say that precipitation is of equal importance. The Alps have shown that glaciers from the past were at times far more retreated than today, and indeed correspond with temperature trends, as alludes.

Pierre Gosselin
November 29, 2008 2:09 am

…as Ric Werme alludes.
That should read.

Pierre Gosselin
November 29, 2008 2:23 am

Will Small,
I know science has nothing to do with PR, but unfortunately climate science is all about PR. This PR battle, my friend, you appear to be losing.
Please note that citizens have yet to be really asked to make sacrifices. So just imagine the backlash and opinion swing that would occur should the government enact laws to force the people to make sacrifices.
Where is this doubt coming from? From a few bloggers?
Will, it only takes one inconvenient fact to bring down an entire science. One little pin prick is enough to pop the biggest of balloons.

November 29, 2008 5:16 am

Thanks Smokey for getting a link to that colorado uni graph – that was the one I had in mind – must get to know how to put links in here!
harold ambler – I will check out the malware thing – not had that before – my email is
on ocean heat content – i have been reviewing that area recently – there seems to be a few teams in the USA – reviewing the ocean instrumental data – Lyman, Gouretski, Willis and Warren White at Scripps has some good stuff on links to solar cycles – and a team at Hadley (Matthew Palmer) – one data set and maybe five teams looking at it! I’m not at my desk right now, but can get you all the references if you mail me.
what is important is not just the oft-reported ‘no net warming’ since 2000 (once the ‘cooling’ error was corrected) – but that two teams have now confirmed that there was a long term instrumental bias in addition and that means past warming was 200% over-estimated. The crucial thing is that the ability to hindcast the past warming was taken by the modelling fraternity as a ‘validation’ of the models they then use to predict the future warming! The really sad thing is that the oceanographers reporting this revision state in mealy-mouthed words – that their findings ‘underly the importance of ocean heat content studies for attribution studies of global warming’ or some such designed not to cause too much of a stir.
A similar revision of the atmsopheric models – hitherto validated by their ability to hindcast ‘global dimming’ due to AG sulphur – held until recently to be the cause of the 1945-1978 ‘dip’ in temp – now known NOT to be caused by AG sulphur but the PDO cycle – means the models need a major overhaul!
pierre gosselin – I agree on the proxy record – I suspect that instrumental records will show higher short term peaks – like the 1998 ENSO – and that any such past peaks will show less in the tree-ring, stalagmite or whatever the proxy being used is.
on future cooling – the AMO index suggests the Atlantic has another decade or so of warm phase before it turns and joins the PDO – which leaves Landscheidt’s prediction of LIA for 2030 looking about right!
The Little Ice Age WAS global bar Antarctica and Tasmania – which tend to do the opposite to the Northern Hemisphere – but some regions – like West Africa saw 2-3 degree C changes between warm and colder conditions, due to major ocean current changes.

anna v
November 29, 2008 6:49 am

All we need is a really cold winter in the west, maybe the Thames to freeze again; in conjunction with economic realities it will be enough for the balloon to burst.

November 29, 2008 9:08 am

It is not simply weather events that prove the lie of AGW.
It is the behavior of the promoters.
The leaders of AGW- Hansen, Schmidt, Gore, the IPCC leadership, etc., have never honestly described the alleged risk. They have never ethically debated it. They have for years sought to demean, silence, intimidate and otherwise suppress those who have asked the tough questions about AGW. Many of the AGW community leadership have called for criminal actions to be taken against those who have disagreed.
This is not how legitimate people act.
Add to that the obvious data manipulation of people like Mann- misusing stats and using corrupt data- and the suppression of people like Spencer or Pielke, and it is clear that something very different from scientific debate or exploration is occuring.

Andy_stun UK
November 29, 2008 9:41 am

I would like to recommend Peter Taylor’s submission about climate change found here: as a succinct and well-written treatise on the whole debate. Lucy Skywalker (feel the force!), if you haven’t already put this in your sceptic primer, it deserves a place. No spelling mistakes either! It does surprise me that so many of the publications on both sides of the debate have not only not been properly peer-reviewed, but are not even checked for basic English. Norm’s excellent paper, for example, mixes rational with rationale. The traditional principal / principle problem is scattered ubiquitously. I am available for free spell-checking if that helps any would-be publishers! (Contact via Anthony or mods presumably).
// rant over
PS Ethos pdf is really good.

Spencer Atwell
November 29, 2008 10:48 am

Spencer says:
I summarise the interesting range of opinions wrt AGW.
1. James Lovelock. Its too late -we are all doomed
2. Al Gore. We are all doomed in ten years time
3. IPCC. We are not all doomed but it might be unpleasant in 100 years time.
4. Projecting historical performance – its about to get a lot colder and unpleasant.
5. Predicting climate change is not possible at the moment but the world’s population is likely to grow by 3 billion in the next 40 years – now that is something to worry about.

November 29, 2008 5:14 pm

Pierre Gosselin (02:23:07) :

I know science has nothing to do with PR, but unfortunately climate science is all about PR. This PR battle, my friend, you appear to be losing.

Well the story may be promising, but that article, dated Nov 27, has an inset
of snowmaking and a caption that reads “A file photo showd [sic] snow cannons blasting artificial snow on a slope in Kitzbuehel, Austria. Due to the uncommonly warm weather many European alpine ski resorts have no snow. (Roland Schlager/Getty Images)”
However, a November 26th article, says

Ski resorts open early after heavy snow – as prices plunge

Ski resorts across Europe are opening early after snowfalls of a metre and more in the past week.
Andorra has had two metres of snow, and both of its ski areas opened last weekend, the best start to a season for more than 40 years.
More than 200 resorts will also open early this weekend in Austria, France, Germany, Italy, Norway and Switzerland. The story is repeated in Canada and New England, where a metre of snow also fell at the weekend.


Arctic winds bring a blast of good fortune to mountain resorts
Paul Simons, Times Weatherman
The large snowfalls last week brought magnificent conditions across the Alps, Pyrenees and Scandinavia.
The snow in many areas is already more than twice as deep as average for this time of year. The high-altitude resort of Zermatt in Switzerland has reported more than 2m of snow, but even slopes down to 1,000m (3,280ft) have had enough snow to leave sufficient cover for the rest of December without another snowflake falling.
Particularly encouraging is that the big snowfalls have come with very cold weather. Often an early snowfall quickly melts because the ground is too warm. The recent cold temperatures froze the ground, however, letting the snow settle and build up a thick base, which can better withstand a run of no snow during the rest of the season.
Scotland’s resorts have also benefited from the bonanza. Visitor numbers had dropped alarmingly in recent years as winters have grown milder and shorter.
The autumn snowfalls in Europe have been delivered on northerly airflows streaming down from the Arctic. The winds are being driven by two big pressure systems in the mid-Atlantic, known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. As low pressure around Iceland and high pressure over the Azores slacken, so cold, wet air is steered over Western Europe, producing snow over mountains from northern Spain to Scandinavia. This type of pattern produced some brutal winters in the 1960s and 1970s. Since then the North Atlantic Oscillation has tended to intensify, driving milder winter weather over northwestern Europe.
This year’s early taste of winter does not necessarily mean that it will last, but the weather pattern looks as if it is locked in place well into December, with the promise of more cold and snow to come for Europe. A particularly striking feature of this pattern is the way the Azores high pressure is stuck in the mid-Atlantic, held in place by a big kink in the high-altitude jet stream winds like a pair of nutcrackers. This is known as a blocking weather pattern, and tends to last for some time, and until it shifts the weather is likely to remain much the same.
However, the Met Office reiterated its long-range forecast for a milder than average winter over northern Europe. If last winter is anything to go by, though, the European mountains may stay cold while lowland areas enjoy relatively milder conditions.

Wow, technical stuff. And an obligatory chant from the Met.
And also

Winter resorts revel in white gold after best snowfall in decade
Mark Frary, Ski CorrespondentSki resorts across Europe will open this weekend ahead of schedule after the biggest November snowfalls for at least a decade.
The exceptional conditions, including 60cm (23in) of snow on Alpine slopes and even more in the Pyrenees, has given a much needed boost to the ski industry after claims that global warming could devastate its multibillion-pound business.
“This is nature’s way of cocking a snook at the experts,” said Christian Rochette, the director of Ski France International, ….
On the Spanish side Roberto Buil, the marketing manager of the Baqueira Beret resort, said that the slopes had opened on November 22 for the first time in 44 years. “All our 69 ski runs are open,” he said. “We are having an amazing start.”
The tourist office in La Molina said that it would open 18 of its 52 slopes today with “very, very good snow for this time of the year”.
The cold snap comes after an OECD report said that a two-degree rise in temperature could eliminate a third of all Europe’s ski slopes over the next 40 years.
“We know that global warming is happening,” Mr Rochette said. “Perhaps there will be an unforeseen impact which means we carry on getting as much snow as we do now.”

Yah just gotta watch out for those unforeseen impacts.

November 29, 2008 5:38 pm
November 29, 2008 6:50 pm

“And here in the U.S. the glaciers in Glacier National Park are retreating so rapidly that they’ll be gone in approximately a dozen years”
Can anyone find any RECENT data on extent of the glaciers in Glacier National Park? The only data I can find are several years old. I can’t find anything at all from the most recent two years. Oh, and GNP is quick to point out that the park isn’t named for the glaciers themselves, but for the landscaping done there by glaciers in the last glaciation.

November 29, 2008 8:22 pm

By the way, I read a paper from 2006 but the most recent data in that paper was from 2004. I have found nothing more modern and can not find even any recent pictures from the Park Service showing glacier extent in modern years. All the pictures on various web sites seem to be from the early 2000’s.

Jack Simmons
November 29, 2008 9:52 pm

Pierre Gosselin (02:00:20) :

8. Many AGW “cilmate scientists” have long lost their credibility by resorting to science shenanigans and neurotic alarmism, e.g. AIT, Mann curve, etc..

Pierre, this is the most compelling reason for my skepticism about AGW. I don’t care for the way the advocates treat skeptics, particularly the ones with scientific credentials.

November 29, 2008 11:28 pm

Hey, jeez, let’s hear it for the Baby Ice.

anna v
November 30, 2008 4:16 am

Seems that the passage between Iceland and Greenland will be closing prety soon.
The animation is impressive too.

anna v
December 2, 2008 4:37 am

Can somebody comment on the following?
The Canadian Coast Guard has confirmed that in a major first, a commercial ship travelled through the Northwest Passage this fall to deliver supplies to communities in western Nunavut.
The MV Camilla Desgagnés, owned by Desgagnés Transarctik Inc., transported cargo from Montreal to the hamlets of Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Gjoa Haven and Taloyoak in September.
“We did have a commercial cargo vessel that did the first scheduled run from Montreal, up through the eastern Arctic, through the Northwest Passage to deliver cargo to communities in the west,” Brian LeBlanc of the Canadian Coast Guard told CBC News.
“That was the first — that I’m aware of anyway — commercial cargo delivery from the east through the Northwest Passage.”
Rayes, who was on the vessel during its trip through the Northwest Passage, said the company informed the coast guard, which put an icebreaker on standby.
“They were ready to be there for us if we called them, but I didn’t see one cube of ice,” he said.

Freezing Finn
December 2, 2008 6:34 am

LeBlanc on “That was the first — that I’m aware of anyway — commercial cargo delivery from the east through the Northwest Passage….”
I came across with an article online somewhere months ago where it said the Passage has been open before and fairly recently – in 1905 and beginning of 1940’s.
Now a quick 2-minute search resulted in this – a quote from an article from last year:
“…the Canadian government on Monday ordered a Canadian coast guard icebreaker laden with scientists, the Amundsen, to make a detailed survey of the route. The ship is named after the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, the first person to travel the passage in 1905, who made the journey in a wooden sailboat.”
Rayes on “They were ready to be there for us if we called them, but I didn’t see one cube of ice,” he said.”
Now, I had some Scotch too last night and I sware, I didn’t see one cube of ice either…;)

Ian Cooper
December 26, 2008 6:10 pm

To Philip_B,
thanks for that link to our West Coast (New Zealand) galaciers. I’ve been looking for something like that for awhile. Try this excellent photographic web site composed by a glacier gude at Franz Josef Glacier, Blair Campbell. A superb photographic record of glacial advance.
During the year New Zealand glaciologists cited the continuing retreat of the major glaciers on the eastern side of the Southern Alps (Tasman Glacier in particular) as more evidence of global warming. I found it intrguing that they didn’t make a mention of the advancing pair of glaciers on the western slopes of the Southern Alps.
Galcial advance for the west coast glaciers in particular is dependent upon the following conditions; 1. Winds coming predominantly from the south west and 2. Dry, cool conditions to inhibit melting. These conditions have been very strong again recently. Severe rainfalls (the rain turns to snow at that altitude – over 2,000m) at the top of the neves for both Franz Josef & Fox galciers have been the norm this past southern spring.
Glaciologists tell us that it takes approx. 5 years for the heavy rainfalls to manifest themselves as surges/advances at the terminal face. FJ and Fox have been advancing at a rate of 3 metres per day in recent times. I need to find out more on the rainfall of the past 5 years down on the lower west coast of the South Island to see whether or not to expect a continuance of the current advance. My guess is that we will definitely see futher advance in 2013 at least.
BTW, they measure their rainfall by the metre down on The Coast, not the mm! I plan to get back down there next March (the southern autumn & winter are the best times to visit) and try to take some more photos from the positions that I used in 1984, 89 and 2001. The viewing platform I used in 1984 is now buried under ice.
The anecdotal evidence from around the world, and mentioned above, coincides with weather events down here in New Zealand as well over the past 5 years. For me the most significant events were the arrival of icebergs off the Canterbury (east coast South Island) for the first time in around 75 years. There were regular recordings of similar events from the 1890’s until the early 1930’s.
Straight away this was given as an example of global warming. Antarctica was melting and here was the proof. This immediately ignored the fact that this type of thing had occurred often in the past when the world was supposedly colder. My contention is that sea-surface temperatures had dropped sufficiently off the SE coast of New Zealand to sustain large icebergs. Just put an ice cube in warm water and see how long it lasts.
Another local event of similar signifigance was the occurence this past southern winter of avalanches in the Tararua Ranges (mean height 1,500m or 5,000 ft) also for the first time since the late 1920’s. In fact there are no mountain trampers alive who can remember seeing avalanches in these mountains. Prior to this year the average snowfalls in these mountains were around 1m. This year the average has ranged from 2 – 3m. The Tararuas are the only mountains, outside of the large volcanoes, in the North Island to show signs of glaciation from the last Ice Age.
It appears to me that some weather situations around the world are similar to those experienced in the late 1920’s and the early 1930’s without being identical. Does anyone else see these similarities in their neck of the woods?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights