My only surprise is that it is actually being reported. link Man made global warming is a hoax! Have a nice day!
It’s not a surprise that FAUXNews is reporting this. The surprise is that FAUXNews is relating enough of the story to indicate that this is an anomaly and a result of warming (warmer Pacific = more snow).
There’s more ice collecting in the interior of Anarctica and Greenland too, for the same reason; warming makes more moist air, that then snows over very cold areas (or very high ones that are colder)
But if you look at the ice map of Greenland or Anarctica, you will see that the ice sheet is melting rapidly at the margin, which greatly overshadows such effects.
Anomalous results aren’t a surprise to anyone who knows anything about the problem.
Do you have a legitimate disagreement with Fox News or not? I’m sure you can elaborate without silly little name changers like that.
Ah yes, the typical “Shoot the Messenger” comments just because it was linked to FoxNews. Hate to burst you biased bubble, but it was an Associated Press article. In fact, here are more links to the SAME ARTICLE:
]Mount Shasta glaciers growing, despite warming( AP via Yahoo! News**)*
*]Mount Shasta glaciers growing, despite warming(AP via Yahoo! Singapore News)
*]Mount Shasta glaciers growing, despite warming(The Charlotte Observer)
]Mount Shasta glaciers growing, despite warming(San Diego Union-Tribune)
]Mount Shasta glaciers growing, despite warming( Las Vegas Sun)[/LIST]If this is not enough, I have more links
The OP has (convenienty?) disregarded the scientific explanation contained in the story:
"It’s a bit of an anomaly that they are growing, but* it’s not to be unexpected," said Ed Josberger, a glaciologist at the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash.**
By comparison, the glaciers in the Sierra Nevada, more than 500 miles south of Mount Shasta, are exposed to warmer summer temperatures and are retreating.
The Sierra’s 498 ice formations _ glaciers and ice fields _ have shrunk by about half their size over the past 100 years, said Andrew Fountain, a geology professor at Portland State University. He inventoried glaciers in the contiguous U.S. as part of a federal initiative.
He said Shasta’s seven glaciers are the only ones scientists have identified as getting larger, with the exception of a small glacier in the shaded crater of Washington state’s Mount St. Helens. It formed after the 1980 eruption blasted away slightly more than half the mountain’s ice, and scientists believe it will not grow in area once it stretches outside the shade of the crater.
Glaciologists say most glaciers in Alaska and Canada are retreating, too, but there are too many to study them all.
Although Mount Shasta’s glaciers are growing, researchers say the 4.7 billion cubic feet of ice on its flanks could be gone by 2100. For the glaciers to remain their current size, Shasta would have to receive 20 percent more snowfall for every 1.8-degree Fahrenheit increase in temperature, Tulaczyk said.
The Shasta glaciers have been advancing since the end of a drought in the early 20th century. The mountain’s smallest glaciers _ named Konwakiton, Watkins and Mud Creek _ have more than doubled in length since 1950.
Hikers seeking to cross Shasta’s glaciers _ marked with crevasses as deep as 100 feet _ say they are much larger than the boundaries drawn on geological maps.
“I noticed I was traveling down farther than the maps were showing it,” said Eric White, a U.S. Forest Service ranger who has climbed Shasta for 23 years.
Four glaciers at Washington’s Mount Rainier are staying about the same size. Those glaciers _ shielded from the sun on the mountain’s north and east sides _ have received just enough snow to keep them from shrinking.br>
The added ice on Mount Shasta might be good for the state’s water supplies. Hydrologists believe the glaciers feed springs and aquifers, though they say it’s unclear precisely how the water travels underground.
**Until recently, the same phenomenon that is benefiting Shasta’s glaciers was feeding glacier growth in southern Norway and Sweden, the New Zealand Alps and northern Pakistan, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
In each area, scientists say, more snowfall temporarily offset warming temperatures in the 1990s and early 2000s. But rising temperatures since then have begun to shrink the ice.
Climate change is causing roughly 90 percent of the world’s mountain glaciers to shrink, said Thompson, the Ohio State glacier expert.**
“Best that we keep our eye on the big picture,” Thompson said in an e-mail about Shasta’s unique position. “The picture points unfortunately (to) massive loss of ice on land, which has huge implications for future sea level rise.”
Global forecasts show temperatures warming from 2 degrees to 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century if no major efforts are undertaken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. At that rate, California’s snowpack and its remaining glaciers are among the most vulnerable of its natural resources.*
I wasn’t disagreeing with the content of the article. That’s a right-wing tactic, not one I employ.
What I did was express surpris that FAUXNews put out the whole story and not just the part that supports the view that is normally put forth from righ-wing media outlets that global warming doesn’t exist. The fact that they actually included the part that warmer, moist air from the Pacific (um…global warming) is the reason this is happening.
But nice try at a straw man.
Protestants are not the only group that may use what you call either/or thinking. Generalizations are usually false. Also, calling something a “right wing tactic” is usually false unless you know the other person is as politically minded as yourself.
Also, there is no knowledge increase gained by calling oneself a Democrat or Republican or whatever. All the political parties are subject to human frailties and bad decision making.
Hmmm…have you made similar posts to people who lambaste people they disagree witth because they’re “liberals?”
It is true that, in general, people arguing from a right-wing point of view will criticize the source of information if it disproves the right-wing ideology they espouse. It’s a tactic that is used on right-wing radio all the time.
What I was pointing out is that FoxNews, which is not known for being unbiased, in spite of their “fair and balanced” lie, I mean claim. That they actually presented the entire story was surprising to me and I commented on that fact. I was actually giving CREDIT.
Wake up everyone, this is the coming of the Anti-Glacier foretold by apolalyptic prophets of the new-age. This actually confirms the Global warming theory and is a ressounding proof that we have indeed reached the end of days!
Oh and this drew my attention:
Over the last 4,000 years, Shasta has erupted about every 250 to 300 years, and did so most recently about 200 years ago, said William Hirt, a geology instructor at the College of the Siskiyous.
How dense would you have to be to actually stick around another 50-60 years?
Hope the property values don’t get affected by the eruption.
Right. Only a right-winger would attack the substance of an article and offer facts to refute it. You, on the other hand, confine your attacks to ad hominem.:rotfl:
When someone does the right thing, you attack them because your prejedice requires it.
You only say things like this because you’ve let your mindset be polluted by simplistic, PROTESTANT either/or style thinking.