Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« "Mainstream media" misses the story, again | Main | Can There Be Morality On The Moon? »

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Not all glaciers are melting

I caught a bit of a PBS show last night, out of Seattle, touching on the fact that there's a new glacier growing atop Mount St. Helen's. That's right, a glacier that's growing, not shrinking. The phenomenon was explained by the fact that the rock face keeps the inside of the dome in the shade, thus shielding the area from the warming effects of the sun.

Hmmm. I'm wondering how this fact fits in with the two sides of the global-warming debate: the one side positing that a warming atmosphere, caused by human carbon-dioxide emissions, is causing glaciers to melt, the other side holding (for the most part) that solar activity is causing the atmosphere to warm and the glaciers to melt.

Here's a link to a scientific article about the growing glacier at Mount St. Helen's. Here a link to a photo of the glacier. And here's a link to a website listing all the glaciers that are growing around the world. The keeper of this site seems to think we're on the verge of another ice age. I don't actually see much evidence of that, but I do agree that the fact that not all glaciers are melting is very interesting in light of the global-warming hysteria now gripping the western world.

Posted by Terry O'Neill on May 16, 2007 in Science | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Not all glaciers are melting:


I doubt there's any great scientific significance to this, but then I doubt there's much scientific significance to the CO2 emissions hypothesis, either. But it does give you a pretty picture you can plaster over top of all those the-earth-is-doomed posters that are currently defacing your local light pole.

Posted by: Blackadder | 2007-05-16 11:31:17 AM

"Not all glaciers are melting"

Say it ain't so! But Al Gore told us all about the evils and inevitability of Globull Warming! How can this be???

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 11:41:31 AM

You guys may end up being the very last ones to accept the science. Today I learned that even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists has acknowledged the human connection.


Posted by: observer | 2007-05-16 1:09:03 PM

Speaking about accepting the science:


Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-05-16 1:15:46 PM

Accepting the science is irrelevant. Scientists might be able to point out the problem and recommend solutions, but they cannot (or should not) take political responsibility for those solutions.

The problem lies with Kyoto, the unimplementable scam that threatens to drain billions of precious taxpayer's dollars to give to other countries with no accountability. It is an atrocious plan that never should have been considered in the first place. Worse, Ontario's auto industry was exempted from an original plan. I guess everyone else gets to save the world except for the rich people of Ontario and the main voting bases for the Liebrals and Dippers. How good, then, can Kyoto be?

if the easterners think that Alberta should pay for it all, think again. Secession is not only justified but essential under such circumstances.

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2007-05-16 1:17:39 PM

Ditto, ZP! The Republic of Alberta - the sooner the better!

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 1:20:54 PM

On the scientific issue, the sun's increase in activity is surely causing global warming. After all, every planet in the solar system is experiencing a similar trend... right?... right?

(No, I didn't expect you looked into that. This is a political magazine. As much as it has been near and dear to my heart for years, it's coverage of science, from evolution to global warming, has been shameful.)

Posted by: Timothy Zak | 2007-05-16 1:27:34 PM

"After all, every planet in the solar system is experiencing a similar trend... right?... right?"

Actually, you are correct. Mars and other planets has indeed warmed up as well, as has been pointed out here several times over the last few months.

But I didn't mean to confuse with some facts. Sorry!

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 1:30:08 PM

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"


Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 1:31:51 PM

I agree with obc. The point you raise has been pointed out several times on this blog. You might also want to read the link I posted earlier from David Warren who also points out that many science-oriented people have brought him up to speed on the issues.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-05-16 1:39:04 PM

o/t but I couldn't resist:

CTV web page headline -

Dan Rather makes his acting debut

Ha! Guffaw! Laughter! Chortle!

Dan Rather has been acting as an impartial newsman for See B.S. for decades!

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 1:41:08 PM

Religion parading as science. That is what this is about, for it is anything but science. As the religion of man-made global warming attempts to force the conversion of more converts, it is clearly in competition with Islam.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-05-16 1:45:56 PM

And more proof - albeit anecdotal - is that California motel that removed the Bible from its rooms and replaced it with Gore's crapola: An Inconvenient Truth.

I guess it's time to invoke the separation of earth and state.

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 1:50:51 PM

Notice how Timothy Zak has run away with his hands covering his eyes and ears, now that it has been proven that he knows not of what he speaks?

How typical of the Leftist that he is.

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 2:23:38 PM

ZB/OBC... Correction that's the Rebulic of Alumbia (can't forget us here in BC)...

Posted by: Daniel | 2007-05-16 2:26:47 PM

Sorry but I doubt if Albertans would want us. The NDP have been government here and may be again someday.

Posted by: Monty_inBC | 2007-05-16 5:12:26 PM

"You guys may end up being the very last ones to accept the science."

No. I accept the science (read scientific method) right now. I just don't accept the premature conclusions of the IPCC based on computer models that have yet to demonstrate their validity by accurately predicting, repeatedly, a number of conditions not yet measured.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-05-16 5:20:10 PM

I admit, I was shooting from the hip a little there. That being said, it is clear that you are being selective about your thinking as well. Perhaps intellectual honesty should be judged not from the odd slip, but whether somebody is willing to give their own opinions a second look:

The very link you sent me:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming_2.html
"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

Perhaps most scientists are completely wrong. Still, politicians and pundits are NOT better indicators of science than scientists and that we have still have an obligation to change our wasteful habits.

Posted by: Timothy Zak | 2007-05-16 5:42:41 PM

What do you know of my politics? Oh yes, not only does politics answer all our scientific questions, but beliefs about scientific questions give everything we need to know about political opinions.

How neat and tidy the world does seem!

Posted by: Timothy Zak | 2007-05-16 5:44:38 PM

With regard to the original story, climate change involves an increase in variability, even when there is an overall warming or cooling trend. Whatever else anybody believes, it's very important to emphasise the statistical, distributed nature of the whole controversy. For that I commend Terry

But in a battle of anecdotes, is there more melting ice than encroaching glaciers? That is a question that concernes everybody, whatever you think about gun ownership or gay marriage.

Posted by: Timothy Zak | 2007-05-16 5:53:45 PM

Keep the fights clear, there are two

fight #1: is warming really happening? Most people agree, but there are opposing povs.

fight #2: if warming is real, what is the cause? is is human OR is it a natural cycle.

Most people don't argue fight #1, but I've noticed that most people who are angry at anyone questioning the assumptions of those saying it's human, immediately presume that those who question the CAUSE of the current warming cycle, are actually saying they don't believe warming exists at all.

2 totally separate questions. Keep them straight please.

I believe we are in a warming cycle BUT I DON'T believe that it is necessarily caused by human activity.


because there are enough reputable scientists risking their heads to say they don't agree with this now politically blessed and anointed view that it all comes from human activity.

The cycles of warming have existed for a very long time indeed and if it's human in origin, then HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THE LAST MAJOR WARMING CYCLE IN WHICH GREENLAND GOT IT'S NAME, and also in which grapevines grew freely in Vinland, which is NEWFOUNDLAND!!!!!

If we DO figure out the cause, then and only then can we attempt an expensive solution.

The problem with solutions that are knee jerk reactions to politically motivated fears (make us afraid, raise taxes) is that we will spend tons of money on a solution that won't work or may make it worse.

Never try to fix something you don't understand lest you get in worse problems.

I'm not disagreeing with reducing emissions, that makes a certain sense.

But throwing tax dollars at a problem we don't understand, means those tax dollars are not available for schools, roads, hospitals, jails and the like.

Our social safety net in Canada IS tax funded, and strained to the limit.

Wanna see what happens when people don't get what they have come to expect as their rightful due as citizens?

At least if we are going to blow wads of money at something, let it be something that makes more sense like paying down the debt.

Posted by: canadian freedoms fan | 2007-05-16 6:20:21 PM

Changes on Neptune Link Sun and Global Warming

Skeptics of man-made global warming have found further support in research linking solar output with the planet Neptune’s brightness and temperatures on Earth.

The findings appeared in a recent issue of Geophysical Research Letters. The authors of the article, H.B. Hammel and G.W. Lockwood from the Space Science Institute in Colorado and the Lowell Observatory in Arizona, note that measurements of visible light from Neptune have been taken at the Observatory since 1950.

Those measurements indicate that Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980. And infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that Neptune has been warming steadily as well.

The researchers plotted on a graph the changes in visible light from Neptune over the past half-century, changes in temperatures on Earth during that period, and changes in total solar irradiance.

The results: The correlation between solar irradiance and Neptune’s brightness was nearly perfect; so was the correlation between changes on Earth and solar output, according to a report on the research appearing on World Climate Report, a climate change blog.

“When the sun is more energetic and putting out more energy, the Earth tends to warm up, and when the sun cools down, so does the Earth,” World Climate Report notes. “The Hammel and Lockwood article reveals that the same is true out at Neptune — when the sun’s energy increases, Neptune seems to warm up and get brighter . . .

“How is it possible that the Earth’s temperature is so highly correlated with brightness variations from Neptune? The news from Neptune comes to us just weeks after an article was published showing that Mars has warmed recently as well.

“If nothing else, we have certainly learned recently that planets undergo changes in their mean temperature, and while we can easily blame human activity here on the Earth, blaming humans for the recent warming on Mars and Neptune would be an astronomical stretch, to say the least.”


Posted by: obc | 2007-05-16 7:43:06 PM

obc: I guess it's time to invoke the separation of earth and state.

Ha! Good one!

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-05-16 9:02:01 PM

"Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"

...ah i bet it's because of all dem SUV rovers we landed on dat planet eh!

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-05-16 9:03:20 PM

All done? Good. Now click throuhg the links in the following URL (New Scientist's upcoming issue debunking the myths) to read up on answers to all your favorite talking points.


Posted by: observer | 2007-05-17 8:27:47 AM

The point, observer, is that there are differing opinions. THERE IS NO CONSENSUS, sweetheart!

Posted by: obc | 2007-05-17 8:52:04 AM

Not so.

Spell out your your criteria for "consesus", and more specifically the basis for your saying there's not concensus on global warming and then test just about every other genrally accepted theory or principle against it.

Posted by: observer | 2007-05-17 9:15:29 AM

Circular reasoning will not get you anywhere - except that it will make you dizzy - and ditzy, too.


Posted by: obc | 2007-05-17 9:18:23 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.