The photo below I took this weekend on my way back from a station survey in the remote northestern corner of California. It shows Mount Shasta getting it’s first significant snow of this precipitation season here in California.
Our local progressive weekly recently did a story on Mount Shasta’s glaciers, which have been growing. This isn’t news, but what is news, is the conclusion that was drawn from the growth. Apparently the growth is now being viewed as a sign of “global warming” or “climate change” if you prefer. So now we have glaciers that shrink, glaciers that grow, and these both signal climate change. Thank goodness that has been cleared up.
Unfortunately, the writer and the USGS person both seem to be oblivious to the fact that glaciers are a much better proxy for precipitation than temperature, and that sublimation, not melting, is the primary agent in glacier shrinkage.
North State ice age
Global warming melts glaciers elsewhere, but not at Mount Shasta
By Christy Lochrie
This article was published on 10.09.08. Chico News and Review, here is an excerpt:
First, the good news: Mount Shasta’s seven glaciers are on the grow. The largest, Whitney Glacier, has averaged a 60-foot-a-year growth spree for the past 50 years, according to Dr. Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.Now, the bad news: The 14,000-foot volcano’s glacier growth isn’t a reliable canary in a mineshaft when it comes to global warming woes.
“Mount Shasta is just a local system and does not really tell us much about global warming,” Tulaczyk said in an e-mail. “Everybody should know from their own experience that weather and climate are highly variable in space and time. It is absolutely incorrect to use Mount Shasta as some kind of proof that there is no global warming.”
So what’s up with this volcanic mountain—home to lenticular clouds and, lore says, outer-space lumarians—some 130 miles north of Chico?
Why, while other glaciers are melting like sun-struck snowmen, are North State glaciers plumping?
And what does it mean in the scheme of global warming issues, even as vice presidential hopeful Sarah Palin denies that emissions or other man-created factors are to blame for temperature upticks?
Ed Josberger, a researcher for the U.S. Geological Survey in Tacoma, Wash., says North State glacier growth is proof of global warming, even if, on the surface, it strikes a counterintuitive chord. Shifts in weather patterns are likely to heat some places while chilling others.
“In terms of climate change,” he said, “there’s going to be winners and losers.”
Mount Shasta glaciers have grown, in part, because they’re high enough to escape some (about 2 degrees) of the Earth’s warming trends, and the shifting weather patterns have dumped more Pacific Ocean-generated precipitation onto the mountain, explains Andrew Fountain, a geology professor at Portland State University.
Fountain likens a glacier to a bank account: It grows when there are more deposits (winter precipitation) than withdrawals (summer melt). In most of the world, sped by temperature upticks, glaciers are drawing down as melt exceeds wintertime snow and ice.
“If air temperatures continue to increase in this century, the warming will overtake the glaciers,” Fountain said.
When asked if glacier melt is cause for alarm, both Tulaczyk and Fountain say no, but add that the melt is cause for concern.
Read the entire story on the News and Review here
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What doesn’t “global warming and climate change” explain???? It’s a diminishing set of events… Pretty soon every event will be explained by global warming and climate change (Science and falisfication – whats that?)
It’s interesting that so many of these reports that discuss sustainability link sustainability to fear of unrestrained population growth.
Here in Australia, Mothers are paid a $4000 “Baby bonus” when they give birth to encourage population growth back up to “replacement” levels. And it’s working.
It seems to me that when women are empowered to make their own choices and have access to effective birth control (characteristics of modern, developed, societies) that the birth rate stabilises and so does the population… natural sustainability comes with modern developed societies.
No need to make a special effort wrt population control.
On the other hand, global warming was primarily responsible for nudity. However, unless you enjoy jumping into nearly frozen lakes (and a few do), this too shall come to pass.
The interior of Greenland and Antarctica never get above freezing, but they could be persuaded to melt if scientists keep repeating the same nonsense over and over again.
My first encounter with Mt. Shasta was in the 70s. The snow and ice was impressive and it was so cool that some thought we were slipping into a mini-ice age. In the late 90s, most of the snow and ice was gone. It was “the warmest in history.” Since 2000, the white stuff has been accumulating and temps have been cooling. Is that so difficult to understand? How can anyone suggest that the conditions of the 90s were due to global warming and the cooler conditions since 1998 were due to global warming as well. Can they have it both ways? Apparently so.
*sigh*
It never changes, no matter the event, it’s always global warming or climate change or climate chaos. Should the climate see cooling over the next few decades, the chant won’t change. It’s such a belief system; blinders on, brain off, and repeat after me, “It’s global warming…”
Pamela Gray (23:19:16) : On the other hand, global warming was primarily responsible for nudity.
If one overlays the Old Testament time line on the Holocene Interglacial sea level record as interpreted by Fairbridge an interesting correlation appears. About the time the “first couple” had a bite of the nasty fruit, there was a distinct cooling trend developing. (This around 4000 BC.) Perhaps that part of the story in which they were “ashamed” and resorted to covering up the private parts had more to do with global cooling than any shame at being nekkid.
Leon B said….
“*sigh*
It never changes, no matter the event, it’s always global warming or climate change or climate chaos. Should the climate see cooling over the next few decades, the chant won’t change. It’s such a belief system; blinders on, brain off, and repeat after me, “It’s global warming…””
It used to be witchcraft that explained everything ‘unnatural’………
So nothing changes, except the climate – naturally!
Pamela,
About 30 years ago I worked as a wilderness ranger one summer at a 12,000 foot lake deep in a wilderness area in New Mexico. The lake was partially frozen until mid-July and was the only place to bathe. I got used to taking some very quick baths, and only when the sun was shining brightly and the wind calm.
You act like this is something new. Why do you think they changed the name to climate change:P .. The only way that we are ever going to see ‘cooler’ heads prevail is to have a series of totally nondiscript years where its neither heating up, nor cooling down. The longer the disaster takes the less people will buy into it.
The USA is about to get a lesson in cap and trade though. yehaw! /sarc off
If Mount Shasta’s growing glaciers do not disprove global warming, then they do not prove it either – in growth or decline. But nobody bothers to point that out in the article. AGW is assumed and even advocated for politically. Another typical article.
AGW, whether true or not, is now beside the point.
The fact that humans cause GW is about to made into law, and violating that law will lead to unfavourable consequences.
This is really a tough morning for free enterprise.
Now to climate change, sea levels are not rising, and global temperatures have dropped. The cool PDO phase will make the Shasta glacier grow if anything.
The lastest sunspot appears to be dying off. But a new speck is visible, see bottom left quadrant of the sun.
“Everybody should know from their own experience that weather and climate are highly variable in space and time. It is absolutely incorrect to use Mount Shasta as some kind of proof that there is no global warming.”
Then it’s not global is it?? OH! OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHH!!!!
Sorry, sometimes I channel Sam Kinison. 😉
Propaganda wins. This isn’t a story based on facts. This is merely one more step in the long march. Global warming and environmental policy are, like elections, ultimately determined by the MSM propaganda machine. Cold is warm. Warm is cold. Whatever. They don’t care. All that matters is that the story must move the political snowball further to the left. Everything else is just “mere details”.
because they’re high enough to escape some (about 2 degrees) of the Earth’s warming trends
I never know if AGW believers are just ignorant or deliberately deceptive.
Warming occurs uniformly throughout the troposphere.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/public-review-draft/sap1-1prd-chap3figs.pdf
Why is it just more rainfall? What about the regional cooling that shows up on the HCN sites in the region like Cedarville, CA?
As I recall, they’ve even UHI adjusted the temps from these remote sites because the temps didn’t meet ‘expectations’.
The fairness doctrine will soon be shutting this website down due to it’s anti establishment direction.
Isn’t Mount Shasta supposed to be some kind of mystic power source for the planet? Maybe it’s one of the first places to receive the President-Elect’s healing vibes (“… this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”)
On a more serious note, I found the following paragraph in Wikipedia about the Franz Josef glacier in New Zealand’s South Island, which has also advanced in recent years:
“The glacier is currently 12 km long and terminates 19 km from the Tasman Sea. Fed by a 20 sqm large snowfield[5] at high altitude, it exhibits a cyclic pattern of advance and retreat, driven by differences between the volume of meltwater at the foot of the glacier and volume of snowfall feeding the névé. Due to strong snowfall it is one of the few glaciers in New Zealand which is still growing as of 2007, while others, mostly on the eastern side of the Southern Alps, have been shrinking heavily, a process attributed to global warming.”
So there you have it – if glaciers shrink, it’s global warming, if they advance, it’s just a local quirk of the weather or global warming in another form.
And that’s the magic of the doubled headed coin that is global warming. Flip the coin and it always comes up – global warming. Magic!
Where is the good news in growing glaciers?
There is a nude beach along the Columbia River that grew in nudity and shrank in clothes, gaining ground during the 70’s and 80’s. This summer, as I drove by, I thought I saw a couple of goose bumps peaking out through the brush but that was it. There were no cars in the parking lot. The hot springs in Oregon and Idaho also took it in the shorts…so to speak.
Being a meteorologist , you of all people should understand this article Mr. Watts.
Geez!
I thought you were a scientist, but you are nothing but a hack!
REPLY: You called me a “hack” the last time you insulted me. I urged you to get creative, but here it is again. Is your toolbox of insults limited solely to “hack”?
BTW what do you do? What qualifies you to be the judge of me? And, what proof do you have that this glaciers growth is proof of global warming and not simply changes in precipitation patterns?
And why can’t you use your real name when you insult me? Why can’t you stand behind your own words. Sounds like Tasker to me.
– Anthony
In the 1970’s I worked in MacKenzie Mtns of Canada’s NWT and St. Elias Mtns of Yukon Territory. This was a time of climate cooling, but there was abundant evidence of glacier wasting.
Glaciers can be proxies of both temperature and precipitation. They can be indicators of local and/or regional climate variation. An yes, when properly evaluated, they can provide evidence of global climate variation.
The alarmists have abused this topic for some time and will likely continue to cherry pick those examples that favor their agenda. Unfortunately most folks (especially the press) have neither the training nor expertise to see the bias.
Keep up the good work Anthony. By providing examples such as Shasta, you allow discussion and help educate folks who are willing to be educated.
Dave Bilhaus: Being a meteorologist , you of all people should understand this article Mr. Watts.
Geez!
I thought you were a scientist, but you are nothing but a hack!
Dave, with your obviously superior knowledge on the subject, perhaps you could explain this article to all of us. After all, we skeptics, in addition to being blog-reading nobodies, tend to be a bit dense. We await your explaination with breathless anticipation.
Dave Bilhaus, there is no need to be rude.
Our author is merely expressing his frustration that “everything is due to climate change” and the obvious problems with their knowledge (saying that glaciers are melting, which they almost never do, subliming directly like snow or laundry on a Siberian clothesline). However, the primary source of frustration is that both growing and shrinking glaciers are considered proof of climate change, leading to a non-falsifiable hypothesis. I’m certain that you understand the problems with scientific inquiry that that entails.
That’s twice that Dave Bilhaus has been incredibly insulting to our host. IMHO, three strikes and you’re out.
Regarding glaciers, it should be kept in mind that the primary cause of glaciers advancing or retreating is changes in precipitation, not changes in temperature.
Finally, a little good news. California voters rejected new government subsidies for developing renewable energy technologies and fuels by a 2 – 1 margin. The free market is already developing new technologies, as it always does.
Once a new layer of bureaucracy is put on the backs of taxpayers, it never goes away, and always grows larger. Good to see that this one is going down to defeat.