Claim: Svalbard glaciers lost their protective buffer in the mid-1980s and have been melting ever since

Kris Grabiec / shutterstock

Brice Noël, Utrecht University and Michiel van den Broeke, Utrecht University

The archipelago of Svalbard, a land of ice and polar bears, is found midway between mainland Norway and the North Pole. Its capital Longyearbyen on the main island of Spitsbergen is the world’s most northerly city, some 800 miles inside the Arctic Circle.

Svalbard is also home to some of the Earth’s northernmost glaciers, which bury most of the archipelago’s surface under no less than 200 metres of thick ice. Taken together, Svalbard glaciers represent 6% of the worldwide glacier area outside the large ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica – if they totally melted, they would raise the sea level by 1.7cm.

Satellite map of mountainous islands largely covered in ice.
Svalbard is roughly the size of Ireland or Sri Lanka, but largely covered in ice. Google Maps

Because they are so far north, these glaciers are found at relatively low elevations, mostly below 450 metres above sea level compared to 800 metres or more elsewhere in the Arctic. Moreover, they are shaped like domes with steep sides and extensive flat interiors. These peculiar features make Svalbard glaciers highly vulnerable to climate warming, as we discovered in our research now published in Nature Communications.

Firn, the ultimate meltwater buffer

Svalbard has a relatively dry climate, and each year the amount of meltwater exceeds the amount of snowfall that nourishes the glaciers. This was the case even before the climate started to warm in earnest. So how do these glaciers survive such unfavourable conditions?

Polar bear warning sign, text beneath says
Polar bear warning: ‘applies to all of Svalbard’ Kaca Skokanova / shutterstock

Their secret is hidden below the surface, in a mantle of cold, compressed snow – called “firn” – that covers the glaciers’ interior. The porous firn layer can be up to 40 metres deep, and acts as a sponge that can store massive amounts of meltwater in its air pockets.

About half of all meltwater produced on Svalbard in the Arctic summer is stored and refrozen in the firn layer, preserving glacial mass by preventing the water from flowing into the ocean. When the glaciers stop melting in winter, the buffer capacity of the firn layer is replenished by the accumulation of fresh, fluffy snow, prepping it to store next summer’s wave of meltwater.

Global warming reaches the far north

Being located at the margin of the rapidly declining sea ice cover in the Arctic Ocean, Svalbard is among the fastest warming regions on Earth. And this warming is testing the limits of the firn layer’s capacity to store meltwater.

Rising air temperature in the mid-1980s considerably increased the amount of water that was melting across the glaciers and rapidly filled the air pockets in the firn, progressively weakening its buffer capacity. To make matters worse, the firn layer retreated fast inland to reach the elevation of 450 metres – a critical point that left more than half of the archipelago’s glacier area unprotected.

The disappearance of firn leaves glaciers without their protective buffer, exposing the underlying dark bare ice at the surface. As dark ice absorbs more sunlight than the brighter firn, melt increased even further.

Large glacier flows into the sea. White in background and grey in the foreground.
A Svalbard glacier transitions from firn-covered ice in the background to bare ice in the foreground. Willem Jan van de Berg, Utrecht University, Author provided

The rapid retreat of firn in the mid-1980s triggered a period of sustained mass loss, which has been confirmed by satellite observations. The loss of the meltwater buffer makes Svalbard glaciers highly vulnerable to a further temperature rise. In the warm summer of 2013, water reached the ocean from three-quarters of the glacier area, and mass loss more than doubled compared to previous years. In July 2020, Svalbard experienced record high temperatures once again. Some climatologists predict increases of up to 10℃ by the end of this century – if that happens, the archipelago’s glaciers could completely disappear in the next 400 years.

A climate crisis leads to an identity crisis

Further warming will completely reshape Svalbard’s climate, its landscape and its fragile ecosystems. Rain will progressively replace snowfall. Glaciers will trade their white firn mantle for dark ice. Open waters will invade fjords as sea ice and floating glacier tongues retreat. On land, receding glaciers will leave behind moraines and lakes as a reminiscence of a bygone glacial era. The landscape will start to resemble that of Iceland today, with bare rocks surrounded by grass, mosses and shrubs.

Large mountains with glaciers, grassy hills in foreground.
Iceland… or Svalbard in a few centuries? daniel.t.johansson / shutterstock

The retreating ice will allow increased human activity, including mining, farming and tourism, and further increase the pressure on the wildlife, including the iconic polar bears. Already, polar bears are more frequently sighted on land as the rapid decline in sea ice has forced them to adapt and look for new hunting grounds, endangering both humans and polar bears themselves.

Being located among the fastest warming regions on Earth, Svalbard glaciers are the canary in the coal mine. They can be seen as thermometers monitoring the devastating impacts of the climate crisis. It may not be too late to save part of Svalbard’s glacial landscape and the fragile ecosystems it supports, but time is quickly running out.

Brice Noël, Post-doctoral Researcher, Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University and Michiel van den Broeke, Professor of Polar Meteorology and Scientific Director, Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

188 thoughts on “Claim: Svalbard glaciers lost their protective buffer in the mid-1980s and have been melting ever since

  1. Again, starting at a period when Arctic was very cold and sea ice was at extreme high levels

    AMO was heading upwards from a deep trough in the mid/late 1970’s

    • During the period before 1950 this was a concern for Hans Ahlmann, a Swede who made it clear:
      Spetsbergen (Svalbard) is melting. A lot of research and a remarkable heating was noted:
      https://archive.org/details/glaciervariation00ahlm/page/n5/mode/2up
      page 23: The winter temperature goes up 8 degrees during 10 years 1920-1930
      The trend was the same over the entire northern hemisphere.
      An excellent research.
      Good to know fore those who are scared of recent heating.

    • But that is surely irrelevant? The point is that Svalbard has been warming rapidly since the 80s and these glaciers are melting.

      You can’t argue with the physical evidence of that… or the Svalbard temperature record…

      https://www.sciencealert.com/svalbard-home-of-the-doomsday-vault-just-recorded-its-highest-ever-temperature

      Svalbard’s so called ‘doomsday vault’ holding plant specimens required 20 million euros ($23.3 million) worth of work after the infiltration of water due to thawing permafrost in 2016.

      https://www.spitsbergen-svalbard.com/2018/02/27/more-temperature-records-in-the-arctic.html

      2018: ‘Temperatures in Longyearbyen have been above the long-term average (1960-90) without interruption since November 2010 – that is for more than 7 years! Currently, it is raining in Longyearbyen, and temperatures are above freezing.’

      • And you can’t argue that one is natural and one isn’t, or that it matters if it greens.

        As a matter of fact though, the early 20thC warming was much much more rapid and it isn’t warmer in the vast majority of the Arctic today that previous 20th C. records suggest (in real data, not adjusted).

          • Well that looks like a massive rise in temperature over the last century.

            Well done in making the other side’s case.

          • Still waiting for you to show it is anything but natural.

            Whenever you run and hide from producing evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, you do irreparable damage to the AGW farce.

            Please keep doing it. 🙂

          • Like most warmunists, Steve is unable to do basic logic.

            For him, all warming is caused by CO2, even warming that started long before CO2 levels started rising.

          • Like most d8niers MarkW and Fred250 don’t understand what peer reviewed publications are, but still continue pushing old debunked propaganda.

          • Like most alarmists, steve actually believes that peer review means something.

            Then again, he actually believes the lies he’s been told to believe, so it’s quite obvious that his mental faculties are more than a little lacking.

            Even at the best of times, peer review was little more than spell checking and making sure that at least of couple of your references were actually relevant.

            In today’s world, peer review is little more than gathering together a group of people who already agree with you, in order to rubber stamp what you have created, without any consideration of whether it is any good or not.

          • Still waiting for that “peer-reviewed ” evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2, little-stevie.

            Your headless chook routine is funny, though.

            You are the one DENYING peer-reviewed science that shows the current climate is very much on the col side compared to the last 10,000 years.

          • Like most d8niers Mark doesn’t have any scientific training or degrees and lacks relevance in the real world.

          • poor little stevie,

            Hasn’t a CLUE what actual science is.

            STILL WAITING for your science that proves warming by atmospheric CO2…

            you are a wasteland, a mindless abyss… poor little stevie

          • “doesn’t have any scientific training “”

            Little-stevie…….

            You aborted attempt at social science in junior high DOES NOT COUNT !!

          • Actually I do have scientific training, probably a lot more than you do. Do you have any idea how much math and physics a EE degree requires?

            Regardless, you don’t need specialized training to spot when people are misusing statistics.
            You don’t need specialized training to spot when people are lying about what the data shows.

            Steve is your typical warmunist, who argues that only those he agrees with should be counted as experts. BTW, most of the climate scientists don’t have much in the way of scientific training.

          • Seems obvious that little stevie know about as much about science and maths as AOC.

            Bar-tenders with social-science and arts degrees. !

          • “None of the measured warming at Svalbard could possibly be from the location of the weather station, now could it. 😉”

            Certainly. Until the airfield was built in the 70’s the weather station was at Isfjord Radio at the mouth of Isfjorden. As everyone who has visited Svalbard knows it is much warmer inside the fjords than out at their mouths.

      • Very relevant that the Little Ice Age was pretty much the coldest period for 10,000 years and that many glaciers formed during that anomalously cold period

        Very relevant that the late 1970s was the coldest period since 1900.

        Very relevant that current global temperatures are only marginally above those cold periods and still WAY below most of the last 10,000 years…

        IRRELEVANT….. griff comments

        IRRELEVANT….. the tiny short period of Svalbard temperature record… almost certainly NOT the warmest over the Holocene.

        Poor IRRELEVANT griff yet again DENIES climate change history.

        • fred250 September 24, 2020 at 3:26 am
          Very relevant that current global temperatures are only marginally above those cold periods and still WAY below most of the last 10,000 years…
          IRRELEVANT….. the tiny short period of Svalbard temperature record… almost certainly NOT the warmest over the Holocene.
          Poor IRRELEVANT griff yet again DENIES climate change history.
          ——————-
          Why limit to holocene – I remember 4.5 billion years ago the temperatures were over 2000°C and then just a smidgen (4.499999350 years ago) later the whole globe was frozen to -65°C.

          Perhaps we need to consider relevant time scales?

          • Poor half-runt

            Still running about like a headless chook

            Where is that evidence that human CO2 has caused any of this highly beneficial warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years, half-runt ?

            You are welcome to go back in time and live during a major ice age if that is what you think the world needs.

            Off you trot, you poor little runt. … and no using fire or electricity to keep you warm.

          • I see GhoulFont takes great pride in beclowning itself. Why not go all the way back to the Big Bang while you are at it. Or even before, surely someone as smart as you believe yourself to be should be able to figure out what conditions were like prior to the Big Bang.

            Regardless, going back over the last 100 million years or so, CO2 and global temperatures show no correlation.

        • The Svalbard temperature record dates from 1901.

          The warming since 2010 is certainly relevant.

          In 2018 the local newspaper reported: Temperatures in Longyearbyen have been above the long-term average (1960-90) without interruption since November 2010

          • The cooling from the MWP is just as relevant.

            As is the fact that current temperatures are well below the Holocene norm.

            Its all NATURAL and you have proven you are so incompetent that you cannot produce one tiny bit of evidence otherwise

            Your comment is yet again TOTALLY IRRELEVANT because all it is in mindless pap, based on a piddlingly short COLD period and not backed by anything resembling actual science.

            You keep proving is that the period in years is greater than your IQ.

            You are NOTHING but a moronic mindless twit, devoid of any possibility of rational or scientific thought.!

          • Griff, can you please point out to me where to find the Longyearbyen record for 1960-75, before the weather station was moved there from Isfjorden Radio?

      • “have been above the long-term average (1960-90)”

        ROFLMAO

        You are making a mockery of yourself, griffool.

        We have now established that your IQ is 30. !

      • Temperatures in Longyearbyen have been above the long-term average“.
        Not if you use a longer long-term average. Svalbard has coal mines.

      • It’s like deju vu all over again! Newspaper headlines in November 1922 bruited the imminent loss of Svalbard’s glaciers and possible melting of the Arctic ice cap. Norwegian waters were reported to be too warm for seals and herring were found further north than anyone could remember. The banner headline in the Anchorage Daily Times read, “Indications Arctic May Become Temperate Zone.” …. Ten years later, the climate began cooling. Stay tuned.

      • 1960–90 does not meet the definition of “long-term.” It doesn’t encompass a Centennial Gleisberg Cycle or even a quarter of a Seuss/deVries Cycle.

      • griff,

        From a fellow who is a whole lot smarter than most of us.

        “Just because you see pictures of glaciers falling into the ocean doesn’t mean anything bad is happening. This is something that happens all the time. It’s part of the natural cycle of things” – Freeman Dyson

    • Actually Google Earth historical imagery goes back to 1984 and there has been no change between then and 2016. It’s actually surprising how little change there is in 32 years, none at all. Nor are the glaciers “shaped like domes with steep sides and extensive flat interiors.” It’s like Biden wrote this paper and wasn’t aware that they were on an entirely different island.

    • “The porous firn layer can be up to 40 metres deep, and acts as a sponge that can store massive amounts of meltwater in its air pockets”

      As long as the planet is above a certain temperature, there will be more melting than freezing. regardless of whether the planet is warming up or cooling down above that temperature. This boundary temperature is more of a range of temperature as natural processes sets this temperature higher or lower depending on the region’s geography and climate.

    • Here is a chart of the AMO. It clearly shows the hot 1930’s, and the cold 1970’s

      https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/tsgcos.corr_.81.159.104.45.247.15.34.31.png

      And here’s the Hansen 1999 US surface temperature chart which has the same temperature profile with the hot 1930’s and the cold 1970’s.

      https://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/uhcnh2.gif

      I bet Swalbard’s glaciers were doing about the same thing during the hot 1930’s as they are doing today. One would think there were some records in Swalbard from the 1930’s to compare with this study.

      Notice the cold 1910’s on the two charts, which are comparable to the cold 1970’s. Around 1910 the temperatures started warming and they warmed all the way up to the hot 1930’s. Then the temperatures started cooling and they cooled all the way down to the late 1970’s. And then the temperatures started warming again in the 1980’s up to today. The warming from 1910 to 1940 was similar to the warming from 1980 to today. The warmest temperaturers of the 21st century did not exceed the warmth of the 1930’s.

      So we have two comparable periods of time, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1980 to the present. It looks like the 1910 to 1940 pattern is just repeatig itself in the 1980 to present period. What happens next? Well, if you go by those charts, we should be headed into another period of cooling for a few decades.

      There is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than in the 1930’s, yet it is no warmer today than it was then. It appears that CO2 has a negligible effect on the Earth’s temperature. Mother Nature is running the show and CO2 is at best, a very small part of it.

  2. I wonder how many of these “glaciers” existed in the MWP ans RWP. !

    Or like many other glaciers, did they form during the Little Ice Age, and are now recovering from that colder period. eg Trees and human artifacts under retreating glaciers.

    • https://edition.cnn.com/2019/10/15/europe/switzerland-glacier-melting-scli-intl-scn/index.html

      ‘Glaciers in Switzerland have shrunk 10% in the past five years, a rate that has never been seen before in over a century of observations, according to new research published Tuesday.

      The summer 2019 heatwave saw glacier melt rates break records, leading to huge losses in ice volume, reports the Cryospheric Commission (CC) of the Swiss Academy of Sciences.’

      • SO WHAT.. many of those glaciers didn’t even exist before the Little Ice Age.

        Move to Iceland griff, instead of the cosy southern UK,

        … or stop your mindless yapping about the highly beneficial NATURAL warming that has occurred since the coldest period in 10,000 years.

        You STILL haven’t produce one skerrick of real evidence that the slight warming is anything but NATURAL.

        And seriously….. NOBODY CARES about your manic paranoia over that slight warming and a recovery of sea ice from extreme high extents.

        More warming is FAR preferable than dipping back down into colder , less hospitable climate.

        • fred250 September 24, 2020 at 3:34 am
          … More warming is FAR preferable than dipping back down into colder , less hospitable climate.
          ——————————-
          So you have incontrovertible evidence that A 2°C warmer climate (average!) is not going to cause any problems
          What about ocean currents
          What about places that are already at limits of living temperatures
          What about weather patterns – this years crops in europe are poor just because of odd weather hot early cold later.
          High temps = more evaporation = more precipitation = more flooding

          • Poor evidence bereft half-runt.

            Climate has been warmer in the past…. no problem..
            human civilisations developed during the much warmer Holocene optimum.

            Most of the world’s population lives in warmer climate .. no problem.

            So WEATHER affects crops.. WOW you discovered something new for you…!!

            Warming would open up vast areas of cropland in the NH, as would more rain.

            There is NO EVIDENCE that more flooding is occurring..

            …. just like there is NO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2

            “What about places that are already at limits of living temperatures”

            When are you moving to Yakutsk for the winter ???

        • GhoulFont continues to beclown itself.

          “So you have incontrovertible evidence that A 2°C warmer climate (average!) is not going to cause any problems.”
          Yes, temperatures during the Holocene optimum were as much as 3 to 5C warmer than today, and things were great.

          “What about ocean currents.”
          What about them? Do you have any evidence that they are going to change?

          “What about places that are already at limits of living temperatures.”
          No such places exist.

          “What about weather patterns – this years crops in europe are poor just because of odd weather hot early cold later.”
          Historical records show that warmer climate is a more mild climate.

          “High temps = more evaporation = more precipitation = more flooding”
          It really is amazing that no matter what the subject, CO2 causes it. Just a few days ago GhoulFont was telling us how more CO2 was going to cause widespread drought.

          • ““What about places that are already at limits of living temperatures.”

            No such places exist.”

            Have to correct you on that.

            Antarctica, Northern Siberia in winter isn’t much fun either.

            Would be impossible without fossil fuels.

          • You got me on that one. Since the debate is about global warming, I got fixated on the high end of the temperature scale.

  3. from wiki (erk)

    “Most of the Icelandic glaciers retreated rapidly during the warm decades from 1930 to 1960, slowing down as the climate cooled during the following decade, and started to advance after 1970. The rate of advance peaked in the 1980s, after which it slowed down until about 1990.”

    • wiki needs updating?

      https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-50160039

      Iceland’s Met Office says the country’s glaciers have retreated by a total area of about 750sq km since 2000 – and are losing an average area of 40 sq km each year.

      ‘This summer (2019), Icelanders gathered to commemorate the loss of Okjökull glacier. It lost its glacier status in 2014, when the ice became too thin to move.’

      • Oh dear.. a glacier on top of a volcano has disappeared.

        “Mourners have gathered in Iceland to commemorate the loss of Okjokull, which has died at the age of about 700.”

        So, it didn’t even exist in the MWP..

        Its just a remnant of the coldest period the last 10,000 years.

        Do you really think that freezing cold period was “the norm”

        Are you in climate change DENIAL yet again, griffool ?

        Let’s hope for more warming..

        Maybe those freezing glaciers that formed during the LIA cold period will finally disappear and the place can get back to more normal Holocene temperatures, rather than the freezing and persistent cold they have had to suffer through for the last 700 or so years.

        • https://www.carbonbrief.org/cluster-cold-years-behind-new-zealand-glacier-growth

          poor little stevie.. can’t cope mentally with a bit of NATURAL warming…

          …. oops or is that COOLING…

          virtue signalling little petal that he it is..

          Still waiting for evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2

          Still waiting for you to tell us how the global climate has changed in the last 50 years that can be scientifically proven to be of human causation.

          You you could just keep making dumb comments. !

        • Again, THANK GOODNESS for the warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years.

          Warmer times have always been period of human progress and civilisation.

          Those cold period of the LIA and dark ages.. Not so much.. just pestilence, famine, hardship

          This is what the leftists want back

        • Steve45
          Stood at the foot of both Franz Josef and Fox Glaciers last week. It is beyond sad the retreat those glaciers have experienced in the last 100 years.

          • 100 years.. from the end of the coldest period in human history, SO WHAT !!

            Be VERY GLAD of the warming.. or move to Iceland from your cosy inner city fossil fuel regulated lair..

          • Why is it sad? Do you really believe that only a frozen world is a good world?
            Regardless, the vast majority of the melting occurred prior to the big run up in CO2, so there is no way that CO2 is solely responsible for that melting.

          • “I was horrified…. ”

            Oh dear, you poor petal !! Did you start blubbering and weeping ?

            Now prove, scientifically, it was caused by human released CO2 and not by a NATURAL warming out of a very cold period , not that long ago.

          • Another pointless zero-science attempt at nothing from little stevie.

            Seems he is quite prepared to travel all over the world, in search of CO2 damage

            Such irony, such hypocritical dumbness.

            Do you attend climate conferences as well, little stevie ?

            Part of your mindless virtue seeking and grovelling to the AGW meme?

          • Like every other assumption you have made little stevie, this one also has no relationship to the truth. Much like you.

      • Why are you ALWAYS posting things that support the climate realists, griff? 😉

        I wrote…. “I wonder how many of these “glaciers” existed in the MWP”

        And you immediately provide an example of one that DIDN’T

        Do you realise just how DOPEY you look, griff. ! 🙂

        • fred250,
          Thank you for your tireless attempts to deprogrammed the CAGW cult members!
          While you continue this important work be sure to remember that part of their religious practice seems to be a sort of living lobotomy! Kind of like the old head shrinkers of the Malay Archipelago used to employ, only the victims are, miraculously, kept alive and are able to speak! Sadly, nothing that they have to say has any volitional knowledge behind it; being more like the “talking” of a myna bird than the sign language learned by some gorillas!
          There must be a small portion of the cerebral cortex left which, along with the amygdala and the medulla oblongata, allows them to recite back words that are spoken to them often enough!
          Do not despair in your efforts; while you may never help the Griffster or Half-runt and their ilk regain their cognitive skills, you are educating the neophytes and may discourage them from continuing on into the depths of their cults’ bizarre religious rituals! A mind is a terrible thing to waste and one can hardly find a more wasteful use of time than advocating Climastrology!

          • I want the likes of griff , half-runt and slimon to keep going

            To expose their brain-washed idiocy and lack of science holding their little AGW scam together.

            Every time they duck and weave basic scientific proofs, more people look a bit deeper and realise the FAKE that is behind the AGW farce. 🙂

          • fred a little less hysterical insult and a few more references to the actual science might help, eh?

            If the glaciers are melting more rapidly in the last 3 decades and there’s no sign of that changing, perhaps there’s climate change? And a problem?

          • A bit more learning and far less DENIAL of climate history, from you griff

            You are still batting ZERO because you can’t answer simple questions

            Making an utter and complete failure of yourself.

            Are you even capable of learning reality

            Or does your sock-puppet master refuse to let you.

            Perhaps the climate is warming back slightly towards the much warmer climate before the LIA cold anomaly.

            You still haven’t produce one bit of evidence that that highly beneficial warming has any human causation.

            1… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

            2. Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            Watch griffool squirm like a slimy little eel, as always.

          • Why is a NATURAL recovery from an anomalous cold period a problem, fool ?

            Still nowhere near as warm as for most of the last 10,000 years.

            Why are you DENYING this fact all the time?

            Doesn’t it suit your brain-washed ignorance?

          • “a few more references to the actual science might help”

            STILL WAITING for your empirical “science” of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            You DELIBERATELY DENY any science that shows that current sea ice is still in in the top 5-105 of the last 10,000 years

            You are a science-free zone, griffool !

            A science abyss. !

      • 12,000 years ago, NYC was under 1 MILE of glacier ice….

        Shall we mourn the loss of the NYC glacier, too, griff-san?

        • No doubt Steve45 and Simon would have been saddened and horrified, by the loss of those glaciers too, if they had been around back then.

        • If we are now seeing climate effects which adversely affect us and have an increasing trend, I think we should worry about that, eh?

          • WRONG again griff and as always, totally evidence free, just mindless pap.

            There is absolutely NOTHING happening that is out of the long term warm

            Its all just NATURAL warming out of the coldest period in the 1900s afte a highly beneficial rise in temperature from the coldest period in 10,000 years

            STOP YOUR MORONIC CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL, you pathetic mindless twerp.

            In what way has the global climate changed in the last 50 years that can be SCIENTIFICALLY put down to human CO2

            Your evasion of this basic question shows EVERYONE that you have nothing but ignorant lies and deceit to offer.

          • Where is this adverse affect which has your panties in such a wad?
            Everything that has happened over the last few decades is well inside the range of normal.

      • Iceland was completely free of glaciers for more than 6,000 years. They started rebuilding 4,200 years ago.

        Okjökull only formed around 1300 AD during the LIA. So we are back where we were at the tail end of the MWP. Catastrophe!

  4. ”The retreating ice will allow increased human activity, including mining, farming and tourism, and further increase the pressure on the wildlife, including the iconic polar bears.“

    Right now I’d guess mining, farming, and tourism are pretty close to zero on all 3 for Svalbard. Research, satellite comms stations, and fishing are probably the big 3 there now.

    And as for farming? At 800 miles north of the Arctic Circle!? Is this researcher smoking crack? And as far as mining goes, unless they discover unobtanium in those rocks, ain’t happening, ice or no ice.

    As for more polar bears, that is simply because without human hunting pressures, there’s more of them today.

  5. How horrible!

    A more temperate climate in Svalbard. Imagine flowers and trees, maybe bees. The ecosystem is fragile, because there isn’t much in it. Adding more of the web of life would make it less fragile. More life! What a horrible thought, right?

    Everything must stay the same, say the econauts. They chart the course of our future. Cast everything in concrete, no change allowed. But life is all about change. These econauts know better than we do, of course. They want to protect life, keep it from changing, prevent life from living as living things do.

    What were we thinking?

    • Hoser
      Mmm I think they would argue we don’t want unnecessary change and I think most farmers and biologists would agree with that.

        • …and I was just starting to like the Holocene. As much as the good burgers of Svalbard might enjoy it warmer, there are teeming billions, subsisting on predictable weather patterns who probably wont.

          • Provide evidence that weather pattern are any less predictable than “before”

            If you even followed the erroneous science of the AGW farce, you would know that the colder regions would warm up the most, and in winter and at night… (Now that is seriously GREAT NEWS, wouldn’t you agree !)

            That means less energy differential, hence less extreme weather.

            But as you can provide zero-proof of anything untoward happening anyway.. (except by denying the fact of the Holocene optimum, RWP, MWP etc etc)

            … why bother listening to your childish paranoia and histrionics?

            What was that question you keep dodging??

            In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

            Keep dodging, its funny to watch.. 😉

          • Do you have any evidence that a few tenths of a degree of warming is going to cause noticeable, much less significant changes in weather patterns?

          • Loydo
            “there are teeming billions, subsisting on predictable weather patterns who probably wont.”
            Great comment…

          • No a very DUMB comment…., your puny mind is easily fooled.

            WEATHER is not getting any less predictable. (except in climate models that are more like a computer driven crystal ball exercise.)

            The unpredictability comes as the climate starts to cool., crops start to fail, weather extreme increase etc, like during the colder times not that long ago.

          • Come on slimon..

            In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

          • Those teeming millions are the one the AGW scam wants to DENY the right to reliable electricity. Want to hold back from development.

            Don’t pretend you care, because you DON’T.

            The AGW scam, for some reason, wants now industrial countries to devolve back to the state of third world countries.

          • I’m still waiting for you to provide any evidence that anything happening with the weather over the last few decades is anything out of the ordinary.

            Of course you won’t, because you can’t.

          • Fred, have you noticed that the trolls have decided to only talk to each other?

            Got to keep that echo chamber intact somehow.

      • “we don’t want unnecessary change ”

        What a moronic statement… what the heck is it meant to mean ?

        Its the hard-left that are always trying to make unnecessary changes, that’s why they call themselves “progressive”, even though basically every one of their ideas turns out to be humanly and morally regressive.

        You still haven’t produce one iota of real scientific evidence that humans have caused anything other than localised urban heating (a very small proportion of the land surface).

        No evidence that human CO2 has caused any of the slight but highly beneficial warming since the desperate cold times of the LIA.

    • Changing BACK to what it was like before that anomalously cold period of the Little Ice Age when many of these glaciers did not exist..

      THANK GOODNESS the world managed to warm a little from that desperate cold period. !!

  6. 6% of the world- wide glaciers apart from Greenland and Antartica! 1.7 cm sea rise if 10° C rise in 400 years!
    Be still my heating heart!

    • Ahhhh, but notice the slight of hand. They say 6% of area and leave you to assume that is the same as 6% of volume. At a max depth of 450 meters, that ain’t even close.

  7. They do lots of mining already in Svalbard. It is coal (there are massive seams) and Russians mine it from memory.
    Even Wikipedia admits the change in temperature records is because they moved the station with no overlap. The sea temperatures are well above freezing https://www.weather-atlas.com/en/svalbard-and-jan-mayen/longyearbyen-weather-october Gulf Stream influence? Has that changed over past 100 years and how much effect is that having on the local climate

    • But melt sharply accelerated after 1990.

      This from 2015:

      ‘The world’s glaciers have melted to the lowest levels since record-keeping began more than 120 years ago, according to a study conducted by the World Glacier Monitoring Service that was released on Monday.

      The research, published in the Journal of Glaciology, provides new evidence that climate change has spurred the rapid decline of thousands of the world’s ice shelves over the past century. The first decade of the 21st century saw the fastest loss of ice since scientists began tracking it in 1894 — and perhaps in recorded history, WGMS reported. ‘

      also:
      https://www.lintelligencer.com/new-survey-lakes-formed-from-melting-glaciers-increase-50-percent-in-just-30-years-6123-2020/

      • Most of those glaciers didn’t even exist before the LIA, idiot

        You PROVED that yourself.

        Your pathetic mindless CLIMATE CHANGE DENIAL is like that of a 5 year old child.

        And you STILL haven’t provided one tiny piece of evidence that human CO2 has caused any of the highly beneficial REBOUND from the LIA.

        You are just an empty sock with someone’s hand up your a**e

  8. Arctic glaciers started melting when the PDO switched to its 30-year warm cycle in 1980, and later, the AMO 30-year warm cycle started its warm cycle in 1995…

    When the PDO & AMO renter their respective 30-year cool cycles, glaciers will start growing again…

    The only “barrier” is the wall of silence/cancel culture put up against scientists who are skeptical of the inane CAGW propaganda/agenda…

    • It is 40 years since 1980 – and that’s a 30 year cycle?

      And yet this year we see record arctic circle temperatures and the second lowest sea ice extent since 1979?

      (all 14 of the lowest 14 extents occurred in the last 14 years).

      • Sea ice is still in the top 5-10% of the last 10,000 years

        It is still at VERY HIGH extents.

        Again, that piddlingly short cherry-picked period from a level that was up there with the extremes of the Little Ice Age

        Who can you be SO MORONIC that you are incapable of facing basic facts, even when they are pointed out to you hundreds of times.

        You must the brains of a dead parrot, nailed to its perch.

        Or are you just a moldy sock with some “handler’s” hand keeping your mindless ignorant pap going.

  9. ” – if they totally melted, they would raise the sea level by 1.7cm.”

    Funny the author used the word ‘melt’ , usually they use the word ‘collapse’ .

    I have no idea what a collapsing glacier looks like.

  10. So those of you out there that believe we have the power to stop the melting of a glacier and reverse a process that started (as stated in the article) before “global warming™”, please let us know what we need to do.

    Please let us know what you are personally doing to stop the melting apart from virtue signalling on your Asian made keyboards, whilst sipping your Colombian coffee in an environment created by oil.

    • > we have the power to stop the melting of a glacier and reverse
      > a process that started […] please let us know what we need to do
      What scientists have been saying unanimously is “stop carbon emissions” or at least decrease them.

      > Please let us know what you are personally doing to stop the melting
      All that is possible. Eg. I demand governments (and people in general) listen to scientists (at last). Eg. I debate science deniers, they are the useful idiots used to block any meaningful climate legislation. Eg. I demand from industry to try to be environment friendly. Eg. I try to persuade my compatriots to keep nuclear power stations and carry on with the planned extension (this is Hungary, cc 50% comes from nuclear; extension to 75% is under way, so NO, I don’t live in an environment that has been created solely by oil).

      > apart from virtue signalling
      Sorry, this is false, I don’t do virtue signalling.

      • “I don’t do virtue signalling.”

        ROFLMAO

        Its ALL you do. !!

        You demand governments listen to scientists..
        I agree. Willie Soon, the Connelly father and son duo, Lindzen, Happer, Shaviv, Curry, Christy Legates.. I could name many more.

        Industry should be environmental friendly.
        Yes ..Wind and solar are probably the most environmentally destructive forms of energy from concept to implementation, in use, and at final removal, they should never be used except in very niche circumstances,and certainly lot in large quantities. Glad we agree.

        There is no such thing as “meaningful” climate legislation. Its all a farce and destroys the stability of society.. just as it was designed to do.

        No-one here “denies” science, except perhaps griff, loy etc who block out all science from their minds.

        What do we “deny” that you have actual real scientific evidence for ?

        Warming by atmospheric CO2.. you are still batting zero…

        You couldn’t “debate” a peanut”…. you don’t have the intelligence.

        And yes, you DO live in an environment that is totally reliant of fossil fuels and their products.

        No matter where your electricity comes from, it was built using fossil fuels.

        All your foodstuffs are delivered by fossil fuels, using vehicles built using fossil fuels.

        Stop your idiotic virtue signalling. and face reality for once in your life.

      • “What scientists have been saying unanimously is “stop carbon emissions” or at least decrease them.”

        They may have been saying it, but they have no evidence.

        It is an ideology that exists only in fantasies and climate models.

        Decreasing CO2 emissions will have absolutely ZERO effect on global temperatures.

        And you cannot provide any scientific evidence that it will.

        Temperatures will go wherever NATURAL forces drive them.

      • “All that is possible.” blah, blah….

        LOL…… . so absolutely NOTHING

        … just more virtue signalling !

      • “I demand……. ”

        So What !!!

        Do you “fell” good when you do it.. that’s all that matters, isn’t it ?

      • Well looks like Fred pretty much said the same as me but here it is anyway…..

        To Nyolci:
        “What scientists have been saying unanimously is “stop carbon emissions” or at least decrease them.”

        Unanimously? I presume those scientists that disagree, you would label non-scientists and therefore you still maintain your unanimity.

        So you’re suggesting a massive lock down, like we had in March, that reduced emissions drastically lasting many, many years….and you think this will save your glacier?
        Apart from creating a dystopian nightmare, do you think ruining everybody’s lives is worth it for your ice cube?

        “Eg. I demand governments (and people in general) listen to scientists (at last).”
        These are your special scientists that we mentioned before I presume, because I listen to a lot of very clever people that offer some very interesting, very nuanced thought about what the climate is doing and why, but they come to some very different conclusions…… what to do?

        “Eg. I debate science deniers, they are the useful idiots used to block any meaningful climate legislation.”
        I understand English is not your 1st language, mine neither, but nobody is a “science denier”, nobody here is denying the existence of science. A scientist that doesn’t question his/her theories and those of others is not doing science.
        “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” ― Richard P. Feynman

        ” Eg. I try to persuade my compatriots to keep nuclear power stations and carry on with the planned extension (this is Hungary, cc 50% comes from nuclear; extension to 75% is under way, so NO, I don’t live in an environment that has been created solely by oil)”

        I think you will find a lot of your eco-alarmist friends would find your views on Nuclear power very disturbing, that is certainly not the choice for most of them on their path to salvation.
        I’m pro Nuclear, but the rest of your production is coal and gas.

        When I say your environment has been created by oil I’m not just talking about electricity production, I suggest you look a little deeper into all the things around you that are oil based products, and while you’re at it try and imagine how to build a nuclear reactor without fossil fuels.

        “Sorry, this is false, I don’t do virtue signalling.”
        Good for you, it’s a nasty habit.

        • > So you’re suggesting a massive lock down,
          > like we had in March, that reduced emissions
          > drastically lasting many, many years
          No. And your answer is a good illustration why you should listen to (actual) scientists. At last.

          > nobody here is denying the existence of science
          You know well what I mean. And that’s independent of my first language. Pls don’t play stupid.

          > A scientist that doesn’t question […]
          Scientists know these things well. You should listen to them.

          > I think you will find a lot of your eco-alarmist friends
          > would find your views on Nuclear power very disturbing
          No. And an interesting side note: almost anyone I know (and that includes all my neighbors, the guys in the gym and the lady behind the supermarket counter) is kinda concerned about the environment. In a sense, everyone is “eco-alarmist”.

          > I suggest you look a little deeper into all the
          > things around you that are oil based products
          Of course I’ve done that. That’s why I know (together with mainstream science, ie. science proper) that an “eco-alarmist” change in our economy wouldn’t bankrupt us.

          • > Scientists know these things well. You should listen to them.
            And yet you don’t. Why is that?
            BTW, a scientist is not defined as only those you agree with.

            Being kinda concerned about the environment doesn’t make one an eco-alarmist. Believing that a trivial increase in a minor gas is going be devastating does.
            Believing that bringing the world’s temperature a few tenths of a degree closer to what was enjoyed during the Holocene Optimum is going to be devastating, does.

            Spending 100’s of trillions of dollars, and solutions that make our energy supply both expensive and unreliable, won’t bankrupt us? I’m guessing that you are one of the idiots who thinks that government can just print as much money as it needs.

          • “Scientists know these things well. You should listen to them.”

            https://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council/

            Yes , YOU should.

            It is obvious that you are saying we should only listen to crank AGW scientists and not REAL scientists.

            That would be because you don’t have any idea what REAL science is.

            You talk like a brain-washed uneducated muppet. !

            Lets see you produce some of this “science” you yap ignorantly about

            Produce scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.

            Or just be like a yapping chihuahua behind a 6ft fence.

          • ” And that’s independent of my first language. Pls don’t play stupid.”

            Your fist language is gibberish, is it…

            Please don’t BE stupid. Do something to get away from your current stupidity.

          • > So you’re suggesting a massive lock down,
            > like we had in March, that reduced emissions
            > drastically lasting many, many years
            No. And your answer is a good illustration why you should listen to (actual) scientists. At last.

            You need to get with the program, if you think it’s still about planting trees and buying organic cabbage for your Goulash. Your supposed actual scientists (example Cambridge University) want to geo-engineer the Arctic with sea water spray masts to make clouds whiter.

            “If we reduce our emissions all we are doing is making the global climate warmer a bit more slowly. That is no good because it’s already too warm and we have already got too much CO2 in the atmosphere,” Prof Wadhams said.

            Gotta get radical Nyolci, you’re running out of time.

            > nobody here is denying the existence of science
            You know well what I mean. And that’s independent of my first language. Pls don’t play stupid.

            What else can “science denier” mean? ……it’s an ad hominem attack that’s untrue.

            > A scientist that doesn’t question […]
            Scientists know these things well. You should listen to them.

            You should stop erasing quotes from great scientists that make you look stupid.

            > I think you will find a lot of your eco-alarmist friends
            > would find your views on Nuclear power very disturbing
            No. And an interesting side note: almost anyone I know (and that includes all my neighbors, the guys in the gym and the lady behind the supermarket counter) is kinda concerned about the environment. In a sense, everyone is “eco-alarmist”.

            lol….. my goodness that’s lame.

            Well I’m happy to debate stuff, but really I don’t think you have much knowledge to bring to the table. If all you can say is “listen to (actual) scientists” and “my supermarket lady agrees with me” there’s really nothing more to say. Szia!

          • “the guys in the gym and the lady behind the supermarket counter”

            NONE of who would make the slightest self-sacrifice to do anything about anything

            They would just yap mindlessly.. like you.

            Enjoy living your fossil fueled little non-life, you pitifully pompous hypocrite.

          • What gets me, is that guys like nyolci actually don’t understand how their refusal to implement in their own lives, the draconian changes they are demanding for everyone else, completely destroys what little credibility they may have once had.

          • @Climate believer
            > You need to get with the program,
            > if you think it’s still about planting trees
            > and buying organic cabbage for your Goulash.
            Haha, you try to shift the question, this is some kind of a fallacy. FYI I don’t need a program to point out that AGW is a scientific fact. You deny THIS. But well, there are programs, and these are not like planting organic cabbage (the latter is, incidentally, not a usual ingredient of Goulash) or geoengineering.

            The problem is not the technical level, humankind can overcome the issue of emissions in 10 years without extreme changes in living standards. The problem is society, capitalism has proven itself completely unable to deal with this (and a lot of other) problem.

            > What else can “science denier” mean?
            While this is a bullshit pseudo problem, I understand that you have problems with comprehension, so I explain to you. I know pretty well that you are aware of its existence, you simply don’t like it. You deny method, knowledge and results of science, not its existence.

            > You should stop erasing quotes from great scientists
            Do you really try to cover your ass with Feynman? Okay, let it go: “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” Right. He was talking about scientific doubt. What you deniers show here is not that. There are things you can doubt scientifically and things you don’t want to. You don’t want to doubt the Law of Conservation of Energy, right? There are things you can scientifically doubt, and scientists have methods to doubt them. Unlike this bullshitting here. By the way, I’m really sorry Feynman can’t reflect on you now. He was famous for debunking pseudo scientists and he felt real contempt to them.

            > really I don’t think you have much knowledge to bring to the table.
            > If all you can say is “listen to (actual) scientists”
            First of all, listening to scientists is good for you, and this is independent of my knowledge. Second: explaining even a short scientific result is well beyond this forum, especially if most of the participants can’t understand the simple fact that the quoted article above directly contradict Antony’s introduction.

          • The wording little marxist nyncompoop just keeps up his incessant BS.

            Not one tiny bit of science in its whole yabbering spew of EMPTY words.

            1… In what ways has the global climate changed in the last 50 years , that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

            2. Do you have any empirical scientific evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2?

            You have obviously got absolutely ZERO science background, instead spewing on like a low-end arts/lit barista to try to cover that fact.

        • @MarkW
          > Spending 100’s of trillions of dollars,
          > and solutions that make our energy supply both expensive and unreliable
          It’s about 4 trillion dollars and less than 10 years to get nuclear output comparable to the current total energy consumption. This is 4 years of US military budget (including Veterans’ Adm.), and during “Quantitative Easing” the US printed like half of this money without a hiccup.
          10 years is more than enough to build up substitutes for things that are hard to manage without oil (like chemical industry and transportation).
          So please don’t bullshit about expensive and unreliable stuff.

          • One constant with nyolci, not matter what he declares, he’s always wrong.

            4 trillion to build enough nuclear plants to power the country. Really?

            Let’s not forget the fact that your fellow travellers have successfully shut down the building of nuclear power plants in this country for over 40 years.

            As to funding it, why go after the military, why not defund the many functions of government that are not only useless, but damaging to the country?

          • Ten years is enough time to invent new magical unicorn technologies to power transportation and deploy it worldwide?

            Seriously? We’re going to replace every train, plane, ship and automobile within 10 years using technologies which don’t exist?

            What planet do you live on?

      • Wow, nyolci,
        You did manage to get one right! Keeping nuclear power plants is a good start and adding more would be beneficial in many ways, but worrying about a small increase in a trace gas that is the basis for nearly ALL Life on Earth isn’t one of them!
        I would agree with you wholeheartedly if you want to start fast tracking the design and construction of new nuclear plants for developed countries; but many African nations have extensive coal reserves so it would make much more sense, both environmentally and economically, for them to build clean coal plants as a first step in building their infrastructure! Or are you one of those neo-colonial Greens who think that poor people should be happy with their poverty because you’re satisfied with your own level of development?

      • Everything in your list is nothing but virtue signaling. One thing I don’t see is any changes in your own lifestyle. It’s all about using the deadly power of government to force other people to change. Pretty much SOP for progressives.

        • > One thing I don’t see is any changes in your own lifestyle
          A few problems:
          1. What the hell do you know about my lifestyle? Really, how the hell do you know that? Because I use a computer? Or what? Wanna prove something with shxty arguments like this? As an irrelevant side note, I do my best to be “environmentally conscious” of course, while I perfectly know it doesn’t change shxt,
          2. Because in a fcuked up system individual choices don’t really matter. That’s why they are constantly “marketed”. Oops, another irrelevant side note: bragging about lifestyle changes IS VIRTUE SIGNALING.

          > It’s all about using the deadly power of government to force other people to change
          ??? Government is supposed to be the representative of common (and commonly decided) good. The fact that in the USA the government had been appropriated by an extremely violent oligarchy doesn’t change the fact that people are perfectly capable of making common decisions for the common good.

          • @MarkW
            > You are the one whining about how evil oligarch’s have taken over the world.
            No. I was talking about the USA, and whether they are “evil” is irrelevant. Looting and randomly shooting at cops won’t change that, and if you pretend I was talking about that, you’re more idiotic than I thought.

            By the way, the fact that people start to shoot back against the oppressors is sign a changing mood.

          • Yes, people are starting to shoot back at BLM and their far-leftist thuggery

            Glad you noticed it.

            US government has been SAVED from the takeover by an extremely violent oligarchy.

            Hopefully for another 4 years as well.

            You only have to look at the extremes that anti-democracy thugs like AntiFa fascist, BLM etc go to, to see what is in store if the dumbocrats get back in.

            “Government is supposed to be the representative of common (and commonly decided) good.”

            Current US government DOES.. that is democracy. Democracy fought by continued sliming and violence by those who can’t accept democracy… ie leftists.

          • Police are oppressors? Are you actually demented enough to believe that?

            Of course you are, anyone who is demented enough to believe that a handful of oligarchs run the country and the best solution to that problem is to shoot cops, is stupid enough to believe anything.

            I hope and pray that the next time you have to call 911, that the operator puts you on hold.

          • Fred, you don’t understand. In what passes for nyolci’s mind, it’s only democracy when people he agrees with win.
            When the far left fails to win, that’s proof that oligarch’s run the country. He also believes that police are the oppressors and deserve to be shot.

          • @MarkW
            > Police are oppressors?
            Exactly. Welcome to the real world. For poor people, police act like slave overseers and slave patrols of those good old days I’m pretty sure you want back.

            > the best solution to that problem is to shoot cops
            ??? I’ve never said that. I said: change the system. That means systematically changing social relations. Cops are just part of the enemy, shooting up just them is pointless.

            > I hope and pray that the next time you have to call 911
            I never have to call 911. We have 112 in the EU.

          • Police are only the enemy of those who set out to be against society.

            Marxist twats like you are a prime example.

            You HATE yourself and your existence more than anyone else can, you poor petulant little fascist.

        • 1)Since you are so into bragging about all the good things you are doing, yet no mention of any changes in your personal lifestyle.

          2) Now you are making excuses for why you don’t have to actually make any personal sacrifices.
          BTW, I just love the way you declare that any system that doesn’t immediately do whatever it is you wish is “f**ked” up. It can’t possibly be you that is “f**cked” up, it must be the system.
          Typical progressive, it’s always someone else’s fault.

          3) If a bunch of people vote to steal the money from others, it isn’t theft, it’s just the will of the people. If a bunch of people believe that bringing slavery back would be a good thing, it’s just the will of the people.
          On the other hand, whenever a bunch of people decide to do anything that nyolci doesn’t like, that’s proof that the system if “f**ked” up and must be changed.

          I love the way progressives manage to justify anything they want, and are willing to use violence to make sure that they, and only they, get what they want.

          • > I just love the way you declare that any system
            > that doesn’t immediately do whatever it is you wish is “f**ked” up
            ??? I didn’t declare that. I only declared THIS particular system was fcuked up. And I’m not alone by far, according to polls, around 60-90% of people (depending on the wording of the question) declare extreme discomfort about the system they live in. Think about school lunch debt, just as an non climate related illustration.

            > If a bunch of people believe that bringing slavery back would be a good thing
            Slavery was abolished “using the deadly power of government to force”.

            I can’t understand your constant (and quite inconsistent) jerking about lifestyle changes. An example: I selectively collect garbage. I regard this topic closed, this is completely irrelevant.

          • If the problem isn’t bad enough that you feel the need to make any personal sacrifices, that’s proof that you don’t actually feel that there is a problem.

            Like most progressives, you feel that your job ends with demanding that other people’s money be taken so that it can be spent on the problem.

            Being a hypocrite has never bothered a progressive, so long as your supply of free stuff isn’t threatened.

          • @MarkW
            > you feel the need to make any personal sacrifices
            I should know better, instead of taking to a bullshitter, I should just ignore it…
            So again, I DO changed my lifestyle. All the while I know well that it’s more or less irrelevant. More than 95% of transport related emissions is related to logistics. A single factory consumes more energy and resources than 60 thousand households. etc. Private choices hardly make a dent in emissions. And if you start to bullshit about the cost of changing transportation and industry, you’d better know the “developed world” used the fraction of resources in the 70s compared to the current situation, with a standard of living that was negligibly worse than what we have now. I’m talking about the developed world.

          • So funny watching this slippery little nyholist trying to rationalise his doing NOTHING except yapping and virtue seeking.

            Now back to the topic

            What do we “deny” that you have actual real scientific evidence for ?

            Let’s sit back, watch and LAUGH at the continued childish attempts at distraction and evasion.

            Listen to the REAL scientists, nyholist

            https://www.thegwpf.org/who-we-are/academic-advisory-council/

            Not some self-appointed yobos playing computer games.

          • If nyolci follows the standard pattern, he will declare that since nobody here agrees with him, he’s too good for us and he will leave in a huff.

            Once again, the progressive declares that the system is evil and can’t be fixed, that’s why it has to be torn down and all the oppressors (read: Anyone who disagrees with the progressive) has to be shot.

      • Poor nyolist..

        You have exposed yourself as just another scientifically ignorant, far-left anti-human, anti-democracy, anti-life moronic thug.

        One that thinks just yapping mindlessly while living a lifestyle that is totally reliant of fossil fuels is anything but “virtue seeking”

        Hilarious.

        Please keep going,.. good for a laugh.

        • He’s not anti-human; it’s just that he, like most progressives, does not believe that people who disagree with them are human.

  11. I am struggling to find when the concept of being cold was preferable to being warm?
    There must have been a” tipping point “?
    Back in the 1970s the media were awash with apocalyptic stories and fear, of an unending cooling giving us an early new ice age, with major cities under a mile of ice.
    Now here we are just fifty years later.
    To see an arctic island transition into a semi habitable landscape, is as good a result/turnaround as it gets.
    What is there not to like?

    • Rod,
      I’m now pretty much convinced that a lot of the early CAGW proponents didn’t give a damn about the environment! They just saw a warming cycle starting and thought they could get their goal of a one-world socialist governing body pushed through before the next cooling cycle began and all their claims fell flat! They are very close to realizing that goal now with President Trump being the main impediment to their dream!
      Just imagine a world where the UN and China are the global powers, and America is on it’s knees, begging forgiveness for once having been prosperous and free! That could easily happen if Biden is able to steal the 2020 election through the DemoKKKrat voter fraud program!

      • AM, If hairy legs gets in I think we can be certain of one thing Kamala Harris will be President before the end of the first year.
        We can also be pretty sure the kind of freedom to comment about politics in the USA will come to an abrupt end. That won’t be the only thing that comes to an abrupt end unfortunately.

    • I struggle to find where having floods in your coal mine and your settlement where there were none before is ‘great’… or where having more drought, wildfire, tropical storm/hurricane, heatwave is better.

      Glacier over house = bad. Ice age = bad.

      Global warming = also bad (and actually happening)

  12. The entire article is laced with emotive language, personifying glaciers as if they are sentient beings rather than the cold, lifeless ice that they really are. The author clearly hates humans, hates life, and loves ice. He should buy a ticket to Hoth.

    Here are selected phrases from his screed:
    “home to some of the Earth’s northernmost glaciers; highly vulnerable; So how do these glaciers survive; Their secret is hidden; warming is testing the limits of the firn; glaciers highly vulnerable; Some climatologists predict; an identity crisis; Glaciers will trade; waters will invade; a reminiscence of a bygone glacial era; increased human activity; devastating impacts of the climate crisis“

    Cry me a river. Those poor vulnerable glaciers just want to survive, are suffering an identity crisis and long for the good old days. Those mean old humans!

  13. Do we not live in an inter glacial period? Imagine my horror to discover that glaciers might be, and I do mean “might” retreating rather than growing. Being static is not an option so…How will we survive if things change??? We don’t even know that things aren’t getting colder, but if we are getting warmer, well thank goodness! Humans don’t do well in extreme cold- oh and neither do most other species to remind the greens.
    I embrace change- since there’s no point in denying it!

  14. The above alleged research has all of the convolutions of a bad soap opera with every statement desperately trying to portray the science in the worst light.

    Proof?

    “Being located among the fastest warming regions on Earth, Svalbard glaciers are the canary in the coal mine.”

    Another irrelevant attribution to a saying that they do not understand.

    i.e. the canaries frequently died in the performance of their highlighting low oxygen level duties.
    Canaries were sacrificed as warnings to men that oxygen levels were insufficient.

    What the alleged researchers above claim is that Svalbard will warm up and once again, as it has in the past, support more life. Hardly a canary sacrificing life so that man lives.

    There are other signs where the authors twisted phrases to make things sound worse.

    “Rising air temperature in the mid-1980s considerably increased the amount of water that was melting across the glaciers and rapidly filled the air pockets in the firn, progressively weakening its buffer capacity. To make matters worse, the firn layer retreated fast inland to reach the elevation of 450 metres – a critical point that left more than half of the archipelago’s glacier area unprotected.”

    Which is it?
    • Is Firn filled with water or is it permeable to water that then flows to the sea?
    • Does Firn retreat? Or does this describe transient pulses of meltwater flowing to the ocean?
    • Firn retreated and left half of Svalbard’s glaciers unprotected? Unprotected from what, meltwater?

    I note the authors never bothered to project annual sea level rise or how long till all of Svalbard’s Firn is gone.
    Too busy emoting and wailing, I guess.

    • > Unprotected from what, meltwater?
      Unprotected from collapse, creeping, and leaking. This problem has analogues in Greenland and the Antarctica. Large ice fields act as barriers, supports for glaciers, and when they collapse, glacier speeds, and subsequently ice getting in the ocean, increase, so the total loss is even bigger than what you can calculate from temperature rise. This is just a factor, there are others (like melt water acts as a kinda lubricant speeding up the glacier).

  15. I would like to see the weather station raw data — RAW DATA — from one or more weather stations on Svalbard. It makes sense that the firn would have reduced in the 1980s, because the world was warming then, up from the cold dive 1940-1975. However, temperature is now on the downswing, since 2000. This would, I speculate, be confirmed from the RAW DATA of TMAX on Svalbard. It should correlate with in increase in the firn over the past 20 years.

    Can anyone provide the data? This search at NOAA produced no results
    https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/results

    • The temperature in Svalbard has NOT been on a downswing since 2000: it has seen record temperature years

      This reports (2018): ‘Temperatures in Longyearbyen have been above the long-term average (1960-90) without interruption since November 2010 – that is for more than 7 years!’

      https://www.spitsbergen-svalbard.com/2018/02/27/more-temperature-records-in-the-arctic.html

      This gives some outline/background data
      https://www.uib.no/en/matnat/124318/svalbard-has%C2%A0experienced-warming-4%C2%B0c-last-50-years

      This has many useful links
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Svalbard

      Here’s an interesting side effect of this years record heat:
      https://thebarentsobserver.com/en/industry-and-energy/2020/07/coal-mine-flooded-melting-glacier

      ‘Climate change hits back, Svalbard coal mine flooded by melting glacier’

      • URBAN expansion will do that, grifFOOL..

        No evidence at all that human released CO2 has cause any of the highly beneficial warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years

        In fact the ONLY warming this century came from the El Nino effect in 2016…

        https://i.postimg.cc/J050xMy6/UAH_NoPol_2000-2020.png

        You have already shown that lots of the glaciers didn’t even exist in the MWP.

        MWP was warmer in Svalbard than now, otherwise those glaciers wouldn’t still exist.

        But you have to DENY that fact, because to admit would destroy your mindless panic.

        And now you are rejoicing that they won’t have sufficient coal for heating during their FREEZING cold winters.

        What an evil little low-life cretin you truly are.

        Answer the questions, and stop slithering around like a eel in a putrid barrel of green slime.

        1… In what way has the global climate change in the last 50 years that can be SCIENTIFICALLY proven to be of human causation?

        2… Do you have any empirical evidence of global warming by human released CO2.

      • Many creatures are well happy with the return of sea ice down slightly toward more normal Holocene levels.

        Polar Bears are THRIVING..

        Whale food is actually RETURNING to the area, bringing with it bowhead whales back from the edge of extinction.

        https://partner.sciencenorway.no/arctic-ocean-forskningno-fram-centre/the-ice-retreats–whale-food-returns/1401824

        “In recent years, the ice has retreated north and away from the arctic shelf break, and we again have a situation in which both nutrient salts and sunlight are available in Whalers Bay.
        This also means that the zooplankton Calanus glacialis are becoming more numerous, providing an abundant food source and conditions to sustain new generations of bowhead whale.”

        That is GREAT NEWS, isn’t it griffool !!

        DENIAL of climate history.. grifFOOL’s only way of protecting his puerile little mind from the truth.

      • North Iceland sediment core

        https://www.co2science.org/articles/V11/N25/l1_northiceland2.gif

        Much warmer in MWP

        https://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017eea5c93d4970d-pi

        https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0012821X08000289-gr1.jpg

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0959683617715701

        “Shallow marine molluscs that are today extinct close to Svalbard, because of the cold climate, are found in deposits there dating to the early Holocene. The most warmth-demanding species found, Zirfaea crispata, currently has a northern limit 1000 km farther south, indicating that August temperatures on Svalbard were 6°C warmer at around 10.2–9.2 cal. ka BP, when this species lived there. The blue mussel, Mytilus edulis, returned to Svalbard in 2004 following recent warming, and after almost 4000 years of absence, excluding a short re-appearance during the Medieval Warm Period 900 years ago.

        So up to 6C warmer.. and guess what.. polar bears are still there. !!

        You have been sold a huge stinking DUMP, griff.. and you are rolling in it.

    • griff, you linked me to a generalized ‘conclusion’ article, and to GISS, which only publishes estimates. The usefulness of that aside, that is not what I was seeking.

      I am looking for the RAW DATA from a station on Svalbard.

      When asking the question “is there abnormal warming on Svalbard,” it is best to look at raw data from a steady measurement, one station at a time, over 100-140 years. Estimates and ‘evaluations’ from estimates are far less important.

      Add: just now I downloaded the “stations” file from GHCN, and guess what, there is a station at the Svalbard Airport.

      SV000001008 78.2500 15.4667 28.0 SVALBARD AIRPORT GSN 01008

      I don’t have time this morning to extract that data, but will attempt to fetch it and graph it this weekend. If anyone else gets the inclination, go for it.
      ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/
      you will need ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/daily/ghcnd_all.tar.gz [3Gig]

      • Fair enough. I could only find possibly relevant stuff in Norwegian. too much to google translate.

        The local news services from the area certainly seem to think that the temperatures have been above (previous) normal for the last decade.

        • The NATURAL warming since the cold LIA.

          Above “normal” in a very short period of temperature.. totally irrelevant to anything.

          Still far less than for most of the last 10,000 years.

      • The “Longyearbyen” climate record is a mess. 1933-41 and 1946-75 it is from Isfjord radio 30 miles WSW of Longyearbyen, From 1975 it is from Svalbard Airport 3 miles NW Longyearbyen.

        Before 1933 and 1941-46 it is stitched up from a variety of short records from all over the Isfjord aea, or even further away. The climate inside the fjord is much warmer than on the outer coast.

        And the Airport station is very nicely located 80 feet off the main taxiway from the runway to the terminal:

        https://earth.google.com/web/@78.24495676,15.50324304,13.8625762a,472.96811871d,35y,0.1693051h,0t,0r

        (the white dot below the aircraft)

    • Well, the data for SV00000100820 is not going to help. It “stops” at 2009. This is typical for NOAA, repressing direct measurement from historical stations.

      Fine, NOAA, go ahead and establish your new array of stations, just a handful around the world, and make models of surface temperature from them. It best … and only a dim “best” … the direct measurement data from these few stations can be plotted to see the sine wave of TMAX for each station, one by one, to see things headed up and down …………… for eight years. The tells you nothing, in itself, about the sine wave over a century.

      So, my claim stands: temp has been falling since 1999.

  16. RETRACTION: I am stupid. I have to retract my last comment. I should have made coffee first.

    The records for SV000001008 do indeed go to the current year, right up to September.

    I apologize, and will plot this raw data this weekend. The first date in the record is Sep 1975, so that is still not much to go on if one wants to see the trend for a century.

    • September 1975 was when Svalbard Aiport opened.

      Any older data aren’t comparable since they were measured at Isfjord Radio, a much colder location. So you can forget about griffs “1960-90 Average”.

    • Back to the BETTER more fertile times before the BIG FREEZE of the Little Ice Age

      The Earth is RECOVERING, just a little bit, from a severe cold.

      GREAT NEWS, isn’t it , you moronic cretin !

      And if humans have caused any of it (which there is absolutely no evidence of),

      then ALL THE BETTER. 🙂

    • That blogpost is nonsensical. It claims that the snowfall on the icecap is 0.4-0.5 meters per year (which would be moret typical of inland East Antarctica), but what the cited paper says is actually:

      “Mean annual precipitation, typically in the form of snow, is about 200 mm at sea level and 450 to 500 mm at higher altitudes.”

      Which means about 2 meters of snow at sea level and 4.5-5 meters at higher altitude. Apparently this “climate scientist” is unaware that snow is less dense than water.

      • 1m = 100 cm = 1000 mm
        If the source says 450 mm then that is 45 cm or 0.45 meters.
        If the source says 450 cm then that is 4500 mm or 4.5 meters.

        I hate it when I have to support Griff, but it wasn’t wrong about the alleged yearly snow fall. Then again, blind pigs and acorns.

    • By the way the miscited paper is very interesting. It shows that the Severnaya Zemlya icecaps have reacted very differently in recent years, some are thickening some are thinning, and often both in different areas.

      It also presents strong evidence that the icecaps downwind from areas where there has been less sea-ice in recent years are the ones that are thickening. This is an old theory: less sea ice => more snow => growing ice-caps, but there have been little empirical data supporting it, though the pattern of the four main advances of the Eurasian ice-sheet during the last glaciation is suggestive.

      Rcommended:

      http://earth.esa.int/fringe09/proceedings/papers/s9_6shar.pdf

Comments are closed.