Hi Laura,

It didn't see them say anything about land use and deforestation having an impact. If you cut down the forest then the amount of water vapor released into the local climate is drastically reduce. This means less snow fall in the upper elevations and less snow pack. Then this reduces the amount of water returning to the local climate in the form of run-off. What do you think?

I would like to point out the following.

From http://climatesci.colorado.edu/

�Land use change in the western United States has the potential to alter surface temperatures, humidity, and energy fluxes, particularly during the warm, dry summer months. Multiple models detected temperature responses to conversion of natural vegetation to irrigated agriculture and urban land in California and Idaho. The modeled effects of urbanization are generally less consistent across models, due to the diversity of model parameterizations implemented.�

This is an effective sensitivity set of model experiments of Type 2 as defined in Table 1 in

Castro, C.L., R.A. Pielke Sr., and G. Leoncini, 2005
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/R-276.pdf

Cool article.

It'd be interesting to see how this article can be reconciled to the other recently released article citing the stronger influence of "dirt" on melting snow vs. atmospheric temps. (Which interestingly enough doesn't contradict this article.)

I would also love it if someone could clarify for me the mechanisms and time lag that glaciers experience when melting.

Thanks Laura!

Most people need to understand that as temperatures rise, the rising heat is not what will be immediately apparent. The changing weather patterns producing drought and excessive rain in unaccustomed areas which will cause most pain on a global level. Also, winters will be colder and summers hotter. Essentially weather extremes will get even more extreme. Look at the record drought in US Southwest and the rain in Southern China and the Northeast US, all of them all-time records with more to come.

Here's a link to another "evidence loss" on the AGW side:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0607/0607climalarm.htm

Gasp!!!! The sun may have something to do with it? Most of the snow was lost before the industrial boom of the 1950's???? What am I going to do now?? I guess I will have to find some other doom and gloom cause.

Signed hopelessly hopeless.

"record drought"

This is the sort of nonsense which AGW draws it's life from. Over the last three years the majority of the west is running above normal precipitation. Is that a record drought?
http://hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/36mPDeptUS.png

During the current water year - since Oct 1, temperatures are near or below normal for much of the southwest- Texas, NM, CO, UT
http://hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/WaterTDeptUS.png

and precipitation is above normal for that period.
http://hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/WaterPDeptUS.png

davidd:

What do you use as a basis to make the claim that weather extremes will become more extreme? This is, of course, as it relates to AGW.

Beyond being a "scare" tactic, it seems to me that it would tend to be physically incorrect as the quantity of "heat variation" would essentially remain the same. The "calmest" weather, or rather, the most consistent weather seems to occur when an area experiences its warmest temps. I look forward to the period between July 4 and Labor Day since it corresponds to the hottest part of the year in Central Ohio and the time when the weather is least variable. If the globe warms, the weather should calm. Rain will still occur, look at the amazonian jungles.

Jim - Certainly land use changes could play a role in the changes in climate around Mt. Kilimanjaro, but I don't have any data on the changes that have occurred in the region. Since the paleoclimate record from Lake Victoria seems to indicate a few wet decades in the 19th century, perhaps there is also some cyclic process at work.

davidd;

that had to be one of the most pathetic pleas i have read on this blog supporting manmade global warming...if the evidence does not support the case for manmade global warming, then try and make up some scare tactic to convince the reader...extreme weather? as compared to what?...fool me once, shame on me...fool my twice, shame on you...you agw's are not fooling anybody anymore, except maybe the "naive" politicians...

Laura,
I think you hit the nail on the head. Recent studies of the extent of the ENSO teleconnection (El Nino/La Nina events) indicate that the Southern Oscillation has breadth never before realised. British observers noticed a "connection" between drought events in Austrailia that eventually extend themselves westward to the Indian subcontinent and eventually move into East Africa and Egypt. Anthroplogist Dr Brian Fagan wrote a fascinating if subjective thesis that intense El Nino events controlled the ebb and flow of Nile flooding, which in turn effected the reign of ancient East African civilizations.

From an anthropoligical point of view, warm dry periods can be beneficial to people living in the temperate zones who live off of susbsitence farming; however, for those people in the subtropics, who depend on annual flooding (China, Indo-China and India) it can be catastrophic. On the flip side, periods of long term cooling can be diasterous for those in the temperate zones. Europe during the Little Ice Age had periods of extremes (both late frosts, periods of flooding, as well as periods of drought), and North America -especially the Southeast had long periods of intesnse droughts as well as late snows.

Since we live in an era where subsistence farming is a thing of the past, our outlook is entirely different. The past mild-warm winter in Europe economically hurt the leisure industries of Switzerland. Three hundred years ago a warm winter in Switzerland would have been considered a blessing for God. Three hundred years ago, June snows and heavy rains and high winds across Northern Europe (like we saw a few weeks ago) would have been a disaster for farmers. Today, it is considered a nuisiance.

The sun responsible for the Kilimanjaro snow melt? Fancy that! Where are all of the Al Gore boot lickers, tree huggers and the gloom and doomers regarding this??? Probably locked up in their alarmist bunkers ploting new strategies to lay more guilt on us. That's OK, it still isn't going to work, at least not on this little black duck!

Love and Kisses:

The Denier of your guilt laden BS!

Predictably, the deniers rejoice at these studies, but they should understand that the authors agree with the scientific consensus on AGW. They simply don't think it's the cause of the ice decline on Kilimanjaro.

Interesting discussion about tropical glaciers. If deniers would reference studies such as these, instead of the garbage that comes out of junkscience.com or their paranoia about communism, then they'd be taken more seriously.

Oiznop,

Spare us the garbage you keep spewing. The planet has a fever from the Sun and an artificially enhanced greenhouse! The alarmism has to do with the trend in human emissions and co2 concentration which has been going steadily up for a long time. This has implications.

The notion that AGW was behind the ice cap shrinkage on Kilimanjaro came from a research team headed by Dr. Lonnie Thompson of Ohio State University. His findings were presented to the American Association for the Advancement of Science at their annual meeting February 18, 2001 in San Francisco. Here is a link to his presentation: http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/glacgone.htm

Al Gore used Dr. Thompson's photos of Kilimanjaro's shrinking ice cap as proof of AGW in his book, An Inconvenient Truth. World Climate Report has reported on this for many years and has a scathing rebuke of Gore and Dr. Thompson in its June 12, 2007 post.
Here is the link:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2007/06/12/a-kilimanjaro-we-told-you-so/#more-248

Mark,
It wasn't the skeptics that brought up tropical glaciers in general and Mt K. in particular. There have been "studies" and news reports circulating the newsrooms and blogsphere for at least 3 years attributing melting tropical glaciers to AGW.

As far as studies go, there have been pletny of published studies critiquing various aspects of AGW studies; however, within days the authors of such studies are usually attacked as shrills for Big Engery, or fringe lunatics.

Mark! You came out of your bunker! Nice to see ya! Thor! You mean like emissions that come from countries like China and India, who expect the most prosperous country on earth (hear that Mark?)to do something about it, but they refuse to? Don't think so paly! Can't wait for the first Ozone Action Day. I will be sure to fire up the mower. I might even cut the grass twice!...;-D...

As I've already written on another thread, in my view this latest research about the cause of the changes on Kilimanjaro exemplifies good science.

As far as studies go, there have been pletny of published studies critiquing various aspects of AGW studies; however, within days the authors of such studies are usually attacked as shrills for Big Engery, or fringe lunatics.

When shills for Big Energy publish and promote bogus "studies", it is entirely appropriate that those studies be exposed for what they are. When good science like this is published, surely we should all applaud the research and move on.

Well said Tom.
Finally, a sensible man of conviction, who for the most part stands on one side of the equation, yet can look at all sides and honorably make an honest statement through unclouded eyes. I applaud your quest for the absolute truth.

Mark and Patrick can use a lesson in the art of compromise and middle ground. It helps to clear a path to a mutual conclusion or solution. Something most folks learn earlier in life.