Almost all Austrian glaciers shrank in 2009: report

Apr 09, 2010
An enormous iceberg (right) breaks off the Knox Coast in the Australian Antarctic Territory, 2008. The Austrian Alpine Association (OeAV) said that almost 90 percent of Austrian glaciers shrank in 2009, some by as much as 46 metres (150 feet).

Almost 90 percent of Austrian glaciers shrank in 2009, some by as much as 46 metres (150 feet), the Austrian Alpine Association (OeAV) said Friday.

In a report, the OeAV said 85 out of 96 had shrunk over the past year.

The biggest changes were seen in the Oetz valley in western Tyrol province, where three glaciers retreated by over 40 metres, and eight by over 20 metres.

"The ice is very thin over large areas, so the glaciers are retreating very quickly," noted Andrea Fischer of the University of Innsbruck, who conducted the measurements for the alpine club.

One glacier bucked the trend and expanded, but only by a few dozen centimetres.

Temperatures were higher than average by about 0.2 degrees Celsius in the winter of 2008-2009 and by 2.1 degrees last summer, the OeAV noted.

"This year too, the tips of the largest glaciers will disappear," Fischer said.

"There is a lack of new ice and coupled with high summer temperatures, this will lead to serious shrinking of the glaciers."

Explore further: Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Shrinking glaciers threaten China

Nov 02, 2007

China's glaciers in western Xinjiang Uygur region are shrinking alarmingly due to global and regional warming, posing a threat to the oases in the area.

2 more glaciers gone from Glacier National Park

Apr 07, 2010

(AP) -- Glacier National Park has lost two more of its namesake moving icefields to climate change, which is shrinking the rivers of ice until they grind to a halt, a government researcher said Wednesday.

Western Canada's Glaciers Hit 7000-Year Low

Oct 30, 2007

Tree stumps at the feet of Western Canadian glaciers are providing new insights into the accelerated rates at which the rivers of ice have been shrinking due to human-aided global warming.

Recommended for you

Magnitude-7.2 earthquake shakes Mexican capital

Apr 18, 2014

A powerful magnitude-7.2 earthquake shook central and southern Mexico on Friday, sending panicked people into the streets. Some walls cracked and fell, but there were no reports of major damage or casualties.

User comments : 24

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

mary_hinge
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2010
Interesting article and another indication of massive global glacier loss. However as Physorg is American we can safely assume that geography is not a strong point. The picture is of AustrALIAN Antarctic Territories which is about as far as you can get from AustrIA which, as non-Americans know is in Europe.
I should also ask those at Physorg, presumably eating Donuts with sprinkles...or such like, why a picture of an iceberg instead of a glacier?
Caliban
5 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
Good point, mary hinge.
My guess is that a photo of the Antarctic iceberg is a little easier to understand, visually, than seeing a thinner, less extensive Alpine glacier(without a bunch of complicated photo overlays).
fixer
5 / 5 (2) Apr 09, 2010
Sloppy reporting.
This would get laughed off a commercial channel.
TegiriNenashi
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 09, 2010
It is hard to verify these claims. However here are claims that are easy to verify. GW theory predicts that it is the poles that are expected to warm the most. And what is the reality? Ice pack cover (which could be measured with relatively high precision since the beginning of satellite observations) increased in the Antarctic. The 2007 Arctic low summer ice extent has been trumped with great fanfare in the media, but it gradually recovered to the average. Now, who is in denial?
Caliban
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2010
And the denier noise level increases yet again. Total extent/depth of ice sheets at poles has decreased again over the past year- not increased.

Stating that a decrease in volume/extent in one region of either polar icecap is the same as an increase over the entirety of one or the other, or both, is just more anti-AGW propaganda, generated by paid shills, or else comment provoked from jobless hangers on of the Capitalist Corporate Principalities of (Former) America, hoping for a little dribble of gelt from their Masters.

Now piss off.
rproulx45
4 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2010
re:GW theory predicts that it is the poles that are expected to warm the most. And what is the reality? Ice pack cover (which could be measured with relatively high precision since the beginning of satellite observations) increased in the Antarctic
***

Which you can expect in a warming world as warmer air can hold more moisture, which leads to increased snowfall that accounts for increased icepack.
It could also be a conspiracy led by aliens in conjunction with Elvis Presley's two headed alien baby. Let me be the first to welcome our new Lizard overlords, please be merciful and crush our enemies...
Skeptic_Heretic
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2010
Which you can expect in a warming world as warmer air can hold more moisture, which leads to increased snowfall that accounts for increased icepack.

Except the fact that a warmer atmosphere HOLDS more vapor PREVENTING precipitation, it doesn't GENERATE more precipitation unless there is an increasing energy disparity, which is contrary to the AGW hypothesis.

@Mary: the reason why a picture of an iceberg near austrailia is given rather than a glacier in Austria would probably be due to how ignorant the followers of AGW propaganda are as they're swayed by shiny visuals rather than data and fact.

(No, that doesn't mean all AGW proponents are ignorant. It means that some are, just as the AGW detractors who use ignorant talking points are ignorant.)
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Apr 10, 2010
Yes.
According to everything I've read, and from every credible, verifiable, source, the ice cover is decreasing in extent and volume globally.

Not just in the northern hemisphere, not just in the southern hemisphere, not just in Europe, Asia, Africa, North America, or South America -but GLOBALLY. No amount of squirming, twisting, churning, roiling, or noisemaking changes that.

Given that we are currently in the cooling phase of the interglacial clockwork, and that the average temperature is increasing, and that the only significant systemic factor that we can identify that is acting in a way out of the ordinary is the human species- then it looks pretty damning for us.

To acknowledge that this may be a problem of our own creation? How shockingly, Anthropocentrically, arrogant!

Well- we aren't little children. Time to act grown-up and face our responsibilities.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2010
Interesting article and another indication of massive global glacier loss. However as Physorg is American we can safely assume that geography is not a strong point. The picture is of AustrALIAN Antarctic Territories which is about as far as you can get from AustrIA which, as non-Americans know is in Europe.
I should also ask those at Physorg, presumably eating Donuts with sprinkles...or such like, why a picture of an iceberg instead of a glacier?


Physorg an 'American' website? No. "PhysOrg.com is wholly owned by Omicron Technology Limited, headquartered in Douglas, Isle Of Man, United Kingdom." So says their About Us page.

The staff and contributing writers are from around the globe, however.

But as to the glaciers melting, why did the other 10% not melt away like the 90% that are alleged to have melted back?
rproulx45
2 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2010
Except the fact that a warmer atmosphere HOLDS more vapor PREVENTING precipitation, it doesn't GENERATE more precipitation unless there is an increasing energy disparity, which is contrary to the AGW hypothesis.

So...more more water vapor means more clouds, which leads to less precipitation? Tell me that you work for fox news and you do this on purpose.
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2010
Well, from what I understand of the process not all clouds supply precipitation. Glaciers require precipitation to grow or at least stop shrinking. I do not see yet where Skeptic_Heretic is wrong on what he wrote. Perhaps you might be able to clarify for us?
Skeptic_Heretic
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2010
So...more more water vapor means more clouds, which leads to less precipitation? Tell me that you work for fox news and you do this on purpose.
More atmospheric water vapor does not mean more clouds. Secondly more clouds does not mean more precipitation.

So how about you explain what you're getting at?

Bob_B
3 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2010
I bet more clouds get you more rain than less clouds and lots of sun!
Caliban
5 / 5 (3) Apr 11, 2010
But as to the glaciers melting, why did the other 10% not melt away like the 90% that are alleged to have melted back?


I dunno- for instance, maybe if we plot altitude vs median temperature, a pattern will emerge...
JayK
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2010
Antarctic Precipitation doubled since 1950:
Thomas, E. R., G. J. Marshall, and J. R. McConnell, 2008. A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850. Geophysical Research Leters, 35, L01706, doi:10.1029/2007GL032529.

Please, SH, stay away from the climate change comments, you really don't do yourself any good.
JayK
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2010
Whoops, I typed 1950 when I meant 1850. See, this is how you own up to mistakes.
Skeptic_Heretic
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2010
Please, SH, stay away from the climate change comments, you really don't do yourself any good.

I wouldn't be posting at all if the intent was to do myself any form of "good". This is about facts, which are utterly absent in the majority of these discussions. Still unrefuted but permanently downranked, I could care less. Vindication comes to those who await final result and can claim clarity of reason.
JayK
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2010
So own up to your mistake on this. Increased temperature at the southern pole has resulted in increased precipitation, which is why the southern pole continues to grow, despite warmer oceans causing havoc at the edges of the ice sheets.

Or you could repost that stuff about CO2 in a jar. That was funny.
TegiriNenashi
1 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2010
Returning to the main topic: the alleged glaciers shrinkage is a variable of many factors. Therefore, glaciers are very unreliable (or in terms understandable by AGW priesthood -- unrobust) temperature proxy. Contrast it with ice pack. The later is formed from sea water under freezing temperature conditions -- as simple as that; in particular, it doesn't depend on precipitation. It is also much quicker indicator -- due to huge inertia build into glaciation process one may argue that glaciers shrinkage is a result of recovering from the ice age.
JayK
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 12, 2010
And you would still be wrong, TegiriNenenenenenen. You still don't seem to understand the argument is about rate of change, do you? Or possibly you continue to just ignore that argument entirely in order to build up strawmen and burn them down with your mighty intellect? In fact I count multiple straw men in your latest blather, can you build more?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2010
So own up to your mistake on this. Increased temperature at the southern pole has resulted in increased precipitation, which is why the southern pole continues to grow, despite warmer oceans causing havoc at the edges of the ice sheets.

The only increase in temperature at the southern pole is on the peninsula which has received less precipitation. The reason for increased precipitation on the southern pole is largely due to the slowing of the wind and sea currents that whip around the pole due to other atmospheric conditions.
Or you could repost that stuff about CO2 in a jar. That was funny.
What?
JayK
5 / 5 (2) Apr 13, 2010
Whoops, I should have said warmer weathers around the southern pole causing increased precipitation. You are correct about the static air circulation, my apologies.

As well, I had you mixed up with Skeptikus_Rex, the idiot that thinks CO2 in a jar is somehow equivalent to global climate.
Benier_Duster
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2010
JayK.
That idiot Skepticus reex is none other than ourold friend dachpyarsewipe, makes sense now doesn't it ;)
Skepticus_Rex
1 / 5 (2) Apr 20, 2010
Nope. I think nothing of the kind. But, what you should realize is that a number of claims about CO2 are based upon precisely this kind of jar experiment. Do some research. You might learn something. :)

More news stories

China says massive area of its soil polluted

A huge area of China's soil covering more than twice the size of Spain is estimated to be polluted, the government said Thursday, announcing findings of a survey previously kept secret.

UN weather agency warns of 'El Nino' this year

The UN weather agency Tuesday warned there was a good chance of an "El Nino" climate phenomenon in the Pacific Ocean this year, bringing droughts and heavy rainfall to the rest of the world.

Airbnb rental site raises $450 mn

Online lodging listings website Airbnb inked a $450 million funding deal with investors led by TPG, a source close to the matter said Friday.

Health care site flagged in Heartbleed review

People with accounts on the enrollment website for President Barack Obama's signature health care law are being told to change their passwords following an administration-wide review of the government's vulnerability to the ...