NZ Weather Forum

Problem solved, the glaciers will stop melting now that the emissions trading scheme has been passed. HAHAHAHA, what crap...

I would like to know what the average 'reaction time' for glaciers is, don't glaciers react to climate decades ago?

yes, but the report says that the amount of snow has not changed much, but the rate of melting has increased (because its been warmer), i.e the end of the glacier has been melting back faster

Although the West coast glaciers are quite static and have mini advances but the eastern glaciers are rapidly degrading.

I would like to see a report for the ice accumulation/loss for winter and spring 2008, will NIWA release this?

yes, that would be interesting...although more snow fell,in places, it was warmer overall in inland SI areas, due to more cloud cover ? (i.e wamer nights)? (i.e the melting rate could still have been higher than normal)

Hmmm...speaking of melting glaciers...please see the attached photos...slightlyt OT, but this is the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, Alaska (where my Mom is from and where I lived for almost 10 years)...anyway, the older one was taken in 1920, and the other one is from the Web and the page says 2005 on it (here: http://www.cruisereviews.com/Celebrity/Mercury46.htm)

I have been able to see it receed by quite a bit even in my lifetime...pretty sad, really...it has been such a photogenic and beautiful icon for Alaska...still is pretty, but you sure can see how much it has gone back and exposed the rocks/etc that was underneath it... 8o

I dont really have any faith in there report, records have only gone back 32 years, looking at the graph a couple of good years and your back on top.

No, I don't think Stuff got that quite right. NIWA et al has only been doing aerial-surveys of the 50 odd glaciers in the Southern Alps (at the end of each summer) for the past 32 years, but other records go back at least 100 years.

I dont mean to throw a giant cat amongst the pigeons (love that saying!)...but surely, when you look at how old the earth is, 32 years or even 100 years is so incredibly insignificant.

Im not a believe of, or against, man-made global warming - as you all know I'm not qualified to really have a significant comment - but common sense tells me this seems to be a small blip on a massive radar...and I note Fox News was covering a story the other day about the American Almanac which is actually predicting a cooling over the next decade. Certainly cause for lively debate!

yes, there has been cooling periods (the little ice age) and warming periods (mediteranean times) over the last 10,000 years
which just goes to show that the earths climate is on a knife edge, i.e it, to me, does not take much to tip it one way or the other...

There is also a difference between mass balance and overall length, which is where reaction time etc start to become significant. It's a very dynamic system.

While the east of the South Island, and northern Southern Alps have had a lot of snow this winter, I suspect that snowfall amounts in the heart of the alps are a lot closer to "average".

I also think that glaciers are a good barometer of small changes.....i.e they exagerate the small change...one way or the other...

Sort of, small steep glaciers sometimes are.

The issue here is that they are talking all about terminal position. I would rather hear about mass balance, while the ablation zone backwastes, the accumulation zone may increase in ice mass. While you would probably still see a net loss using this method, it is far more reflective of current conditions, I mean snow in the terminal area of a glacier is pretty insignificant in influencing glacier size, especially when said glacier is ice covered.