The ice melts on Kilimanjaro

[code1211]

For some years now, dramatic before-and-after pictures have shown a decline in the glaciers on Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro. But now, researchers have combined those photographic surveys with actual measurements of the ice taken on the mountain.

Satellite photos show snow and ice cover on Mt. Kilimanjaro in 1993 (top) and 2000
In a report published Tuesday, researchers say the melting on Kilimanjaro is accelerating and that in a few years there may be no ice left.

"Between the period of February 2000 to February 2009, we have lost over 50 percent of the ice thickness at a rate of 0.54 meters per year," said Prof. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University. "If you would project that into the future, that ice field will disappear sometime before 2018."

VOA News - Scientists Measure Accelerating Ice Loss on Kilimanjaro

I seem to remember that the loss of ice from Kilamajaro results primarily from the drop in humidity in the region, not so much the temps.

What is the Temperature on Mount Kilimanjaro? Kilimanjaro Weather

 

[FactFinder]

Impact of Upwind Land Cover Change on Mount Kilimanjaro

SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


· Find Similar Abstracts (with default settings below)

· Also-Read Articles (Reads History)
·
· Translate This Page
Title:
Impact of Upwind Land Cover Change on Mount Kilimanjaro
Authors:
Fairman, J. G.; Nair, U. S.; Christopher, S. A.; Mark, B. G.; Plummer, M. A.
Affiliation:
AA(Atmospheric Science Department, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805, ; fairman@nsstc.uah.edu), AB(Atmospheric Science Department, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805, ; nair@nsstc.uah.edu), AC(Atmospheric Science Department, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805, ; sundar@nsstc.uah.edu), AD(Department of Geography, The Ohio State University, 154 N Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, ; mark.9@osu.edu), AE(Idaho National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83415, ; mitchell.plummer@inl.gov)
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #C23A-0599
Publication Date:
12/2008
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
0762 Mass balance (1218, 1223), 1621 Cryospheric change (0776), 1631 Land/atmosphere interactions (1218, 1843, 3322), 1632 Land cover change, 1637 Regional climate change
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 2008: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code:
2008AGUFM.C23A0599F

Abstract
Studies show local climate in mountain regions are impacted by deforestation at upwind locations. Low land deforestation alters surface energy budget, especially during dry season, altering orographic cloud formation and also surface meteorology at montane locations. While the prior investigations have focused on the effect of low land deforestation on Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, low land deforestation also has the potential to impact alpine glaciers. Retreat of alpine glaciers around the globe has be attributed to global climate change, but at sites such as Kilimanjaro impact of low land deforestation also need to considered. The focus of this study is to address this issue through the use of Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) utilizing satellite data to specify realistic land use change scenarios. The atmospheric fields from the RAMS modeling system will be linked to glacier mass energy balance and ice flow model to study the impact of low land deforestation on glacier retreat. The presentation will include details of model development and initial results from the use of the modeling system.

 

[Old Rocks]

1970: Mankind is making the Earth Cooler and we have the science to back it up

2000: Mankind is making the Earth Warmer and we have the science to back it up

Now Frank, that is a pure crock of shit.


http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/nas-1975.html
UNDERSTANDING CLIMATE CHANGE: A program for action
Review by W M Connolley
This little-read report appears to serve as a useful summary of the state of opinion at the time (aside: I was prompted to read this by someone who thought the report supported the ice-age-was-predicted threoy [1]: as all too often happens, the report when actually read does no such thing...), which opinion was (my summary) "we can't predict climate yet, we need more research".
I know of only two places where this report is referred to in "current" debate (you know others? good: mail me: wmconnolley@gmail.com): the page from the Cato Institute (discussed on the main page, the main quote from which is "There was even a report by the National Research Council of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences reaching its usual ambiguous conclusions"), and in a page from sepp [remember, children, a link from this page does not imply endorsement of the contents...], an excerpt from which is below:

From http://www.sepp.org/glwarm/sciaddheat.html http://www.sepp.org/key issues/glwarm/sciaddheat.html:


But this exaggerated concern about global warming contrasts sharply with an earlier NAS/NRC report, "Understanding Climate Change: A Program for Action." There, in 1975, the NAS "experts" exhibited the same hysterical fears—-this time, however, asserting a "finite possibility that a serious worldwide cooling could befall the Earth within the next 100 years."
The 1975 NAS panel claimed to have good reason for their fears: Global temperatures had been in steady decline since the 1940s. They considered the preceding period of warming, between 1860 and 1940, as "unusual," following as it did the "Little Ice Age," which had lasted from 1430 to 1850.


This is a gross misrepresentation of the 1975 NAS report; the Cato summary is more accurate.

But anyway, what about the report itself...?
Ah yes, I'm glad you asked. OK, the SEPP stuff about hysterical fears is nonsense, the report is a calm, mannered assessment of the science.
Let's write its ISBN, so you can find it: 0-309-02323-8.

From the foreword (by V E Suomi, Chair of the US Committee for GARP):

"...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate...".

I believe that this is an accurate assessment of the state of knowledge at the time.

From the preface (by W L Gates and Y Mintz):

"Our response to the concerns [about climate variations [WMC]] is the proposal of a major new program of reseach designed to increase our understanding of climatic change and to lay the foundation for its prediction".

So far so good: the report doesn't believe prediction can yet be done, and its response is to recommend more research, not to make predictions.

From the start of the Introduction:

"Climatic change has been a subject of intellectual interest for many years. However, there are now more compelling reasons for its study: the growing awareness that our economic and social stability is profoundly influenced by climate and that man's activities themselves may be capable of influencing the climate in possibly undesirable ways. The climates of the earth have always been changing, and they will doubtless continue to do so in the future. How large these future changes will be, and where and how rapidly they will occur, we do not know".

 

[Old Rocks]

There was no scientific consensus that mankind was making the earth cooler in 1970.

How many times do facts have to smack you across the face before you finally acknowledge them?

Chris is to facts as Superman is to bullets...totally impervious.

Missouri, Chris is absolutely correct on this issue. There was absolutely no scientific consensus that we were facing a rapidly cooling climate in the '70s. Here is a site where you can see proof of that;

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?

Did scientists predict an impending ice age in the 1970s?
Link to this pageThe skeptic argument...The first Earth Day was celebrated on April 22, 1970, amidst hysteria about the dangers of a new ice age. The media had been spreading warnings of a cooling period since the 1950s, but those alarms grew louder in the 1970s... In 1975, cooling went from “one of the most important problems” to a first-place tie for “death and misery.” The claims of global catastrophe were remarkably similar to what the media deliver now about global warming (source: Fire and Ice).

What the science says...
1970's ice age predictions were predominantly media based with the majority of scientific papers predicting warming.


The notion that the 1970s scientific consensus was for impending global cooling is incorrect. In actuality, there were significantly more papers in the 1970s predicting warming than cooling.


Scientific studies in the 1970's re global cooling
Most predictions of an impending ice age came from the popular press (eg - Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, Time Magazine). As far as peer reviewed scientific papers in the 1970s, very few papers (7 in total) predicted global cooling. Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming due to CO2. More on 1970s science...

 

[Old Rocks]

For some years now, dramatic before-and-after pictures have shown a decline in the glaciers on Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro. But now, researchers have combined those photographic surveys with actual measurements of the ice taken on the mountain.

Satellite photos show snow and ice cover on Mt. Kilimanjaro in 1993 (top) and 2000
In a report published Tuesday, researchers say the melting on Kilimanjaro is accelerating and that in a few years there may be no ice left.

"Between the period of February 2000 to February 2009, we have lost over 50 percent of the ice thickness at a rate of 0.54 meters per year," said Prof. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University. "If you would project that into the future, that ice field will disappear sometime before 2018."

VOA News - Scientists Measure Accelerating Ice Loss on Kilimanjaro

I seem to remember that the loss of ice from Kilamajaro results primarily from the drop in humidity in the region, not so much the temps.

What is the Temperature on Mount Kilimanjaro? Kilimanjaro Weather

And what has caused the drop in humidity in the region?

 

[KittenKoder]

For some years now, dramatic before-and-after pictures have shown a decline in the glaciers on Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro. But now, researchers have combined those photographic surveys with actual measurements of the ice taken on the mountain.

Satellite photos show snow and ice cover on Mt. Kilimanjaro in 1993 (top) and 2000
In a report published Tuesday, researchers say the melting on Kilimanjaro is accelerating and that in a few years there may be no ice left.

"Between the period of February 2000 to February 2009, we have lost over 50 percent of the ice thickness at a rate of 0.54 meters per year," said Prof. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University. "If you would project that into the future, that ice field will disappear sometime before 2018."

VOA News - Scientists Measure Accelerating Ice Loss on Kilimanjaro

I seem to remember that the loss of ice from Kilamajaro results primarily from the drop in humidity in the region, not so much the temps.

What is the Temperature on Mount Kilimanjaro? Kilimanjaro Weather

And what has caused the drop in humidity in the region?

Colder temps lower humidity, higher temps raise it.

 

[Old Rocks]

Impact of Upwind Land Cover Change on Mount Kilimanjaro

SAO/NASA ADS Physics Abstract Service

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


· Find Similar Abstracts (with default settings below)

· Also-Read Articles (Reads History)
·
· Translate This Page
Title:
Impact of Upwind Land Cover Change on Mount Kilimanjaro
Authors:
Fairman, J. G.; Nair, U. S.; Christopher, S. A.; Mark, B. G.; Plummer, M. A.
Affiliation:
AA(Atmospheric Science Department, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805, ; fairman@nsstc.uah.edu), AB(Atmospheric Science Department, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805, ; nair@nsstc.uah.edu), AC(Atmospheric Science Department, The University of Alabama in Huntsville, 320 Sparkman Drive, Huntsville, AL 35805, ; sundar@nsstc.uah.edu), AD(Department of Geography, The Ohio State University, 154 N Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210, ; mark.9@osu.edu), AE(Idaho National Laboratory, P.O. Box 1625, Idaho Falls, ID 83415, ; mitchell.plummer@inl.gov)
Publication:
American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2008, abstract #C23A-0599
Publication Date:
12/2008
Origin:
AGU
AGU Keywords:
0762 Mass balance (1218, 1223), 1621 Cryospheric change (0776), 1631 Land/atmosphere interactions (1218, 1843, 3322), 1632 Land cover change, 1637 Regional climate change
Abstract Copyright:
(c) 2008: American Geophysical Union
Bibliographic Code:
2008AGUFM.C23A0599F

Abstract
Studies show local climate in mountain regions are impacted by deforestation at upwind locations. Low land deforestation alters surface energy budget, especially during dry season, altering orographic cloud formation and also surface meteorology at montane locations. While the prior investigations have focused on the effect of low land deforestation on Tropical Montane Cloud Forests, low land deforestation also has the potential to impact alpine glaciers. Retreat of alpine glaciers around the globe has be attributed to global climate change, but at sites such as Kilimanjaro impact of low land deforestation also need to considered. The focus of this study is to address this issue through the use of Regional Atmospheric Modeling System (RAMS) utilizing satellite data to specify realistic land use change scenarios. The atmospheric fields from the RAMS modeling system will be linked to glacier mass energy balance and ice flow model to study the impact of low land deforestation on glacier retreat. The presentation will include details of model development and initial results from the use of the modeling system.

Very, very good. Real science.

Two notes here. Results of modeling. Seems that if you accept it here, you must accept it elsewhere.

"Impacts of low land deforestration must also be considered." In other words, global warming and the effects of that warming on local atmospheric humidity is also something that must be considered. And one can certainly state that this is an anthropogenic cause in both cases.

 

[Chris]

1970: Mankind is making the Earth Cooler and we have the science to back it up

2000: Mankind is making the Earth Warmer and we have the science to back it up

There was no scientific consensus that mankind was making the earth cooler in 1970.

How many times do facts have to smack you across the face before you finally acknowledge them?

There never was a scientific consensus for global cooling.

There were a Newsweek article about it in 1975, but no scientific consensus.

Nice try.

 

[Old Rocks]

I seem to remember that the loss of ice from Kilamajaro results primarily from the drop in humidity in the region, not so much the temps.

What is the Temperature on Mount Kilimanjaro? Kilimanjaro Weather

And what has caused the drop in humidity in the region?

Colder temps lower humidity, higher temps raise it.

Eeeegod, Sweet Kitten!!!!!!!!

http://archive.amol.org.au/recollections/3/pdf/humidity.pdf


The capacity of air to hold water-vapour varies
according to the temperature of the air.
The warmer the air, the more water-vapour it can
hold. As the air cools down, its capacity to hold
water will decrease.

So, as you cool air, it's relitive humidity will actually increase. That is why cold air hitting a warm air mass with high humidity will result in precipitation. Lower the temperature of the air, and the relitive humidity increases.

 

[KittenKoder]

And what has caused the drop in humidity in the region?

Colder temps lower humidity, higher temps raise it.

Eeeegod, Sweet Kitten!!!!!!!!

http://archive.amol.org.au/recollections/3/pdf/humidity.pdf


The capacity of air to hold water-vapour varies
according to the temperature of the air.
The warmer the air, the more water-vapour it can
hold. As the air cools down, its capacity to hold
water will decrease.

So, as you cool air, it's relitive humidity will actually increase. That is why cold air hitting a warm air mass with high humidity will result in precipitation. Lower the temperature of the air, and the relitive humidity increases.

As the capacity to hold air increases, the water vapor becomes "stretched" out and extends higher, making it dryer ... humidity is not the moister being "held" by the air ...

 

[Big Black Dog]

For some years now, dramatic before-and-after pictures have shown a decline in the glaciers on Tanzania's Mount Kilimanjaro. But now, researchers have combined those photographic surveys with actual measurements of the ice taken on the mountain.

Satellite photos show snow and ice cover on Mt. Kilimanjaro in 1993 (top) and 2000
In a report published Tuesday, researchers say the melting on Kilimanjaro is accelerating and that in a few years there may be no ice left.

"Between the period of February 2000 to February 2009, we have lost over 50 percent of the ice thickness at a rate of 0.54 meters per year," said Prof. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University. "If you would project that into the future, that ice field will disappear sometime before 2018."

VOA News - Scientists Measure Accelerating Ice Loss on Kilimanjaro

Somehow, I'm sure this is Bush's fault too...

 

[Old Rocks]

The Bush administrations censuring of the warnings of the effects of climate change that were being observed from 2001 to 2009 does indeed represent another failure in many, many failures in this most incompetant of administrations in this nations history created.

 

[Old Rocks]

Colder temps lower humidity, higher temps raise it.

Eeeegod, Sweet Kitten!!!!!!!!

http://archive.amol.org.au/recollections/3/pdf/humidity.pdf


The capacity of air to hold water-vapour varies
according to the temperature of the air.
The warmer the air, the more water-vapour it can
hold. As the air cools down, its capacity to hold
water will decrease.

So, as you cool air, it's relitive humidity will actually increase. That is why cold air hitting a warm air mass with high humidity will result in precipitation. Lower the temperature of the air, and the relitive humidity increases.

As the capacity to hold air increases, the water vapor becomes "stretched" out and extends higher, making it dryer ... humidity is not the moister being "held" by the air ...

 

[KittenKoder]

Eeeegod, Sweet Kitten!!!!!!!!

http://archive.amol.org.au/recollections/3/pdf/humidity.pdf


The capacity of air to hold water-vapour varies
according to the temperature of the air.
The warmer the air, the more water-vapour it can
hold. As the air cools down, its capacity to hold
water will decrease.

So, as you cool air, it's relitive humidity will actually increase. That is why cold air hitting a warm air mass with high humidity will result in precipitation. Lower the temperature of the air, and the relitive humidity increases.

As the capacity to hold air increases, the water vapor becomes "stretched" out and extends higher, making it dryer ... humidity is not the moister being "held" by the air ...

Try it ... prove me wrong. If you ever prove me wrong I will recant in the open.

 

[Chris]

As the capacity to hold air increases, the water vapor becomes "stretched" out and extends higher, making it dryer ... humidity is not the moister being "held" by the air ...

Try it ... prove me wrong. If you ever prove me wrong I will recant in the open.

No you won't.

I totally busted you about the number of lawsuits in Japan, and you ran like a scared dog.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read the goddamned article, you silly ass. It is an explanation of relitive humidity in the atmosphere. You obviously have never done the most simplistic of science.

 

[KittenKoder]

Try it ... prove me wrong. If you ever prove me wrong I will recant in the open.

No you won't.

I totally busted you about the number of lawsuits in Japan, and you ran like a scared dog.

If you managed to (which is very doubtful) it was when I wasn't online, which is pretty chickenshit to use now .. but as I said, I highly doubt you did.

 

[KittenKoder]

Read the goddamned article, you silly ass. It is an explanation of relitive humidity in the atmosphere. You obviously have never done the most simplistic of science.

Seattle ... we have a very high humidity level ... in the summer, but dry air in the winter. So yeah, I do know about humidity.

 

[Old Rocks]

Read the goddamned article, you silly ass. It is an explanation of relitive humidity in the atmosphere. You obviously have never done the most simplistic of science.

Seattle ... we have a very high humidity level ... in the summer, but dry air in the winter. So yeah, I do know about humidity.

Kitten, that is the most nonsensical statement that I have ever read. I worked in Seattle for three years, and in Tacoma for over twenty years. You do realize that when it is raining, the humidity is 100%, as it is when in a dense fog. Now, how many days in the winter does it rain in Seattle? LOL.

Dry air in the winter in Seattle, Washingon!!!!!!!! Of all the dumb statements you have made, that one is trully a real winner

 

[KittenKoder]

Read the goddamned article, you silly ass. It is an explanation of relitive humidity in the atmosphere. You obviously have never done the most simplistic of science.

Seattle ... we have a very high humidity level ... in the summer, but dry air in the winter. So yeah, I do know about humidity.

Kitten, that is the most nonsensical statement that I have ever read. I worked in Seattle for three years, and in Tacoma for over twenty years. You do realize that when it is raining, the humidity is 100%, as it is when in a dense fog. Now, how many days in the winter does it rain in Seattle? LOL.

Dry air in the winter in Seattle, Washingon!!!!!!!! Of all the dumb statements you have made, that one is trully a real winner

Actually ... we aren't even tenth in the amount of rain we get. So yeah ... Interesting United States Weather Facts and Extremes Hilo is number one, Miami is #10 ... we Seattle ... not even on the chart because our records are about 50th.