Of course… expanding glaciers in New Zealand consistent with global warming hypothesis

But… but… why did New Zealand cool in the first place? Is that consistent with global warming?

The media release and abstract are below.

###

Climate science: Glacier growth consistent with man-made climate change

A series of unusually cold years in the New Zealand region is responsible for the country’s advancing glaciers, according to a study published in Nature Communications this week. Although this sequence of climate variability and its effect on New Zealand glaciers is unusual on a global scale, it remains consistent with a climate system that is being modified by humans.

The world has experienced unprecedented global ice loss during the past three decades, which were the warmest decades since records began. Despite the warming conditions, some glaciers have grown: in New Zealand, at least 58 glaciers advanced between 1983 and 2008, yet the cause of this growth has been uncertain.

Andrew Mackintosh and colleagues investigate the cause of the anomalous behaviour of New Zealand’s glaciers using a regional-scale energy balance model, which assesses the role of various factors influencing glacier growth or melt. The authors show that the favoured theory – an increase in rainfall – was not supported by their analysis and that instead, cooling in the Tasman Sea and Southern Alps, influenced by large-scale atmospheric waves that encouraged southerly winds in the New Zealand region, was the primary cause. A comparison of model simulations that included and excluded human-induced warming also suggests that Southern Alps glacier ice changes between 1980 and 2005 partly reflects man-made climate change.

12 thoughts on “Of course… expanding glaciers in New Zealand consistent with global warming hypothesis”

  1. When I mentioned a while back that New Zealand had a record cold winter in 2010, I was ridiculed, mocked and laughed at. Now it’s “proof of global warming!!” And they think we should take them seriously?

  2. The glacier growing out of Mt. St. Helens is also about 20 years old and “surprised” NOAA scientists. Only about 3% of glaciers over one square kilometer are even measured; what do we think that all glaciers are shrinking or is that what we “should” think given the narrative.

  3. This rang a contrasting bell – ding !! Associated Press had this out in March of 2016 (was carried by the LAT’s) : “Rapid melt of New Zealand glaciers ends hikes onto them. ”

    Featured are the same two glaciers . .

    “But the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers have been melting at such a rapid rate that it has become too dangerous for tourists to hike onto them from the valley floor, ending a tradition that dates back a century.”

    Here: http://www.latimes.com/travel/cruises/ct-melt-new-zealand-glaciers-ends-hikes-20160316-story.html

  4. “The world has experienced unprecedented global ice loss …….”
    Where is the evidence for that statement?
    Do they mean within all geological time or a cherry picked timeframe?
    Surprise, surprise, I found the reference for this statement and it is from an IPCC report.
    “Hartmann, D. L. et al. in Climate Change 2013: the Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change eds Stocker T. F.et al. Ch. 2 159–254Cambridge University Press (2013).”
    I didn’t see a link to the Macintosh et al paper but it can be found here:

  5. There is no such animal as a global temperature. The placement of the oceans and land masses is responsible for temperatures on a regional scale. Even if satellites can measure temperatures over much of the globe it seems meaningless to homogenize them into an average global temperature.

  6. “While this sequence of climate variability and its effect on New Zealand glaciers is unusual on a global scale, it remains consistent with a climate system that is being modified by humans.”

    OK, so let me get this straight:
    1. Glaciers in the Southern Hemisphere are growing due to anomalous winds from Antarctica and colder-than-normal temperatures in the Tasman Sea — for 25 years? From a climate perspective, 30 years is a minimum for creating a baseline. That doesn’t seem “anomalous” to me but rather a fundamental change in the regional climate system.
    2. Growing glaciers in one part of the world — as opposed to the ENTIRE world — is evidential of human-induced climate change? Based on what metrics? Because as I understand it, climate isn’t consistent in the same direction all over the planet regardless of whether it’s natural or anthropogenic.

    Seems to me that this is yet another study that’s seeking to mitigate arguments to the prevailing narrative of AGW by falsely claiming a violation of Popper’s Law of Falsifiability.

  7. Climate change is happening at a faster rate. People should recognize that the weather has dramatically changed for the worst in the last ten years it’s definitely got worse than its ever been.

  8. New Zealand has gotten colder because heat rises! Look at any picture of the Earth, and you will see that New Zealand is at the BOTTOM. As the warm air rises to the North Pole, it displaces colder air that has to settle at the bottom of the world. Therefore, Global Warming!

    Come on, admit it! It makes as much sense as any “warmist” theory on how this happens!

  9. ‘The authors show that the favoured theory – an increase in rainfall – was not supported by their analysis and that instead, cooling in the Tasman Sea and Southern Alps, influenced by large-scale atmospheric waves that encouraged southerly winds in the New Zealand region, was the primary cause. ”

    Isnt an increase in rainfall the favoured theory of the consensus scientists at the IPCC? And therefore the study is saying the consensus is wrong? shhhh consensuses can never be wrong.

  10. Why is anyone surprised by this kind of report? The need to justify getting grant money and enjoying the perks that go with approval by a group of ‘others’ always influences these things. When politics are forcibly removed from science and unbiased results are published, then we’ll start seeing a drop-off in this kind of thing.
    The people who file these results ignore cyclical changes, which may or may not be regular but ARE recurring, as in the current rain/snow uptick in California. Forest service employees with many years of experience and a profound knowledge of weather cycles have said that the drought would end this year or next, because they know it is a cycle and the end of the cycle was due, as with all cycles. Their evidence was ignored, and thus no preparations were in place for what is turning into a disastrous weather pattern in California.
    I just shake my head over things like this.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.