By Don J. Easterbrook, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA
The recent Portland State University study of glaciers on Mt. Adams by is a good example of bad science, i.e., how a dogmatic bias and selectively leaving out contrary factual data can lead to bad conclusions. As an exercise in critical thinking, I used to have my graduate students take a paper like this apart, piece by piece, to show any scientific errors. Here is an analysis of bad assumptions and errors in the Mt. Adams study.
First, what are the basic contentions in this study?
- Washington’s gradually warming temperatures have caused Mount Adams [glaciers] to shrink by nearly half since 1904.
- The Mt. Adams glaciers are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes.
- The glacier recession is another sign of gradually warming temperatures.
- The study lends urgency to an earlier federal report that shows the water content of Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s.
Let’s take a careful look at each of these. Have the Mt. Adams glaciers indeed shrunk by nearly half since 1904? How do we prove such a statement? The best way is to have photographic evidence of where the glacier termini were in 1904 and where they are now. For the moment, let’s assume they have shrunk significantly since 1904. But the rest of the conclusion (gradually warming temperatures have caused them to shrink) isn’t a logical consequence of smaller glaciers. Two important aspects of this question are (1) has the climate gradually warmed over the past 100 years and (2) what were the glaciers doing before 1904?
The answer to the question, has the climate gradually warmed over the past 100 years, is no, the climate has not gradually warmed—it has oscillated back and forth between warm and cool periods four times during the past century (Figure 1), and the glaciers have fluctuated back and forth with the climate changes. The inference that the Mt. Adams glaciers began to retreat near the turn of the past century and have gradually shrunk because of gradual warming due to increased CO2 is false.
The answer to the question, what were the glaciers doing immediately prior to 1904 is that they were strongly advancing during the 1880 to 1915 cool period, and many reached terminal positions close to their maximum extent during the Little Ice Age (1300 AD to this century) (Figure 2). Most of the subsequent retreat of the glaciers occurred during the following warm period from 1915 to 1945, well before CO2 began to rise sharply after 1945.
Let’s look at the second contention–Mt. Adams glaciers are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes. The advance and retreat of glaciers on two of those sister volcanoes, Mt. Baker and Mt. Rainier, has been well documented (Figure 4) (see references in Easterbrook 2011 and 2010).
Glaciers on Mt. Rainier and Mt. Baker advanced strongly during the 1880 to 1915 cool period, retreated strongly during the 1915 to 1945 warm period, advanced again during the 1945 to 1977 cool period, and retreated during the 1978 to 1998 warm period. The contention that Mt. Adams glaciers are retreating faster than those on nearby volcanoes and that they have been retreating gradually since 1904 is false. Glaciers on Mt. Adams have not been gradually retreating and are ‘not retreating faster than the others’–all of these volcanoes have fluctuated strongly back and forth during each period of warming and cooling.
The third contention of the study, that glacier recession is another sign of gradually warming temperatures is only partially true. Although climatic warming does indeed cause glacier recession, the inference that gradual warming has caused gradual glacier retreat since 1904 is not true. The glaciers have clearly been periodically advancing as well as retreating.
The fourth contention of the study, that the study lends urgency to an earlier federal report that shows the water content of Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s is totally unfounded. It assumes (1) that gradual climatic warming dating back to 1904 will continue at a constant rate until 2070, (2) that the supposed warming is continuous, (3) that the climate will continue to warm, and (4) that it is caused by increasing atmospheric CO2. The first assumption of gradual warming since 1904 has been shown above to be incorrect—there have been warming and cooling periods that have caused glaciers not only to retreat, but also to advance during this time. The assumption that the climate is presently warming is also not true–in fact, the climate has been cooling slightly since 2000, not warming, so projecting continuous gradual warming into the future is not warranted.
The assumption that CO2 is causing climatic warming is also not true. Much of the glacial retreat was caused by climatic warming that occurred from 1915 to 1945, well before atmospheric CO2 began to rise sharply, so this warming cannot be attributed to rising CO2. In addition, the glacier re-advance from 1945 to 1977 was caused by climatic cooling during the same time that CO2 was rising most rapidly, just the opposite of what should have happened if CO2 caused climatic warming.
So what credence can be given to the contention that Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s? Temperatures in the Pacific NW have been cooling over the past decade, not warming (Figure 5, 6) and the snowpack in 2010 was about 70-200% above normal. In the late summer of 2011, some areas normally snow-free were still covered with 30 feet of snow. Thus, the conclusion of Cascade snowpacks declining by 50% by the 2070s is not credible.
Figure 6. The trend of global temperature since 2001 has been cooling at a rate of -4.0°C (-7°F) per century. Computer models had predicted a 1°F rise in temperature during this same period—that did not happen, showing that the computer models are invalid.
Summary
- Rather than glacial retreat since 1904 due to gradual warming, glaciers have advanced and retreated four times in the past century.
- Glacier termini advanced from 1945 to 1977 during the time of most sharply rising atmospheric CO2,. showing that rising CO2 does not cause climatic warming.
- Glacier recession on Mt. Adams does not prove a gradually warming temperature.
- No climatic warming has occurred during the past decade. Instead a cooling trend of -7° F per century has occurred.
- Cooling during the past decade is not consistent with a claim of 50% reduction of Cascade snowpack caused by climatic warming.
- The 1904 position of glacier termini resulted from strong cooling from 1880 to 1915. Comparing the position of recent minimal glacier termini following 20 years of warming from 1978 to 1998 with 1904 maximum glacier termini gives an exaggerated view of glacier recession.
- Because glaciers on Mt. Rainier and Mt. Baker advanced and retreated four times in the past century, there is no basis for assuming that glaciers on Mt. Adams are retreating faster than those on nearby volcanoes.
References
Easterbrook, D.J., ed., 2011, Evidence-based climate science: Data opposing CO2 emissions as the primary source of global warming: Elsevier Inc., 416 p.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2011, Geologic evidence of recurring climate cycles and their implications for the cause of global climate changes: The Past is the Key to the Future: in Evidence-Based Climate Science, Elsevier Inc., p.3-51.
Easterbrook, D.J., 2010, A walk through geologic time from Mt. Baker to Bellingham Bay, WA: Chuckanut Editions, Bellingham, WA, 329 p.
==============================================================
Addendum:
Something’s odd here. I tried to find the paper, and found references to AP news articles like this one:
http://www.oregonlive.com/environment/index.ssf/2012/01/glaciers_shrinking_on_mount_ad.html
From that article:
In the first comprehensive study of its kind, a Portland State University study has found Mount Adams’ 12 glaciers have shrunk by nearly half since 1904 and are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes Mount Hood and Mount Rainier.
The link in that AP story on OregonLive.com is to a paper, Sitts Et Al 2010 …and it’s a dead link. (It was dead at about midnight last night, it has since been restored)
Found it here: http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3955/046.084.0407
And… no mention of a 2012 study in Portland State University news:
Its like AP recycled old news from a 2010 paper or something. The closest thing I could find was this on PSU news site from December:
http://www.pdx.edu/news/node/16390
I’m thinking perhaps the reaction in the NW press is to a presentation by Fountain, and not a new paper. If readers can find a more recent 2011/2012 paper that I’ve missed, please leave links in comments. – Anthony
=============================================================
UPDATE: Don Easterbrook responds to comments, I’ve elevated his response here:
Easterbrook writes: A couple of points of clarification—
1. We’ve been warming up from the Little Ice Age for several hundred years but not at a continuous rate. The figure of the series of moraines in front of the Deming glacier was meant to point out that glaciers have been see-sawing back and forth for centuries but present glaciers are well upvalley from their Little Ice Age maximums as we ‘thaw out’ from the colder climate. Thus, the idea that glaciers have gradually retreated in response to gradual warming the past century and that it will continue until the 2070s is nonsense. Yes, it’s warmer now than during the Little Ice Age, but because CO2 could not have been a factor hundreds of years ago, the warming must be due to natural causes.
2. I agree that projecting a temperature history of one decade 2070 would be ridiculous (actually we can use a much longer historic record to project to 2070). The point here is that the 1978 to 1998 warming trend is over and cannot be projected indefinitely into the 2070s. The cooling experienced over the past decade began with the switch of the eastern Pacific Ocean from its warm mode to its cool mode in 1999. This mode switch, known as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has happened four times during the past century and every time the global climate has remained warm or cool for three decades (depending on whether the mode switch was to a warmer or cooler mode). We have been entrenched in a cool PDO mode for the past decade and temperatures have cooled slightly. What we know from this is that we have several more decades of cooling to go before the Pacific switches back into its warm mode. Thus, predicting 50% reduction in Cascade snowpack in the 2070s due to global warming is ridiculous.
3. The main point of my comments is that you can’t look at glacier termini in 1904 after 30 years of cooling and glacier expansion, compare it with present termini after 20 years of warming, and extrapolate that as ‘gradual warming’ over the past century as a continuous process that didn’t begin until CO2 began to rise.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Don: I had been replying much the same on the papers website. I used NOAA data just for Washington state, and the temperatures and precipiataions are worse than we thought (TM the Team).
From my first post, edited slightly for clarity:
Checking the NOAA records, I see that precipitation, both annual and in the winter, has increased in Washington state since 1895.
Temperatures are up slightly, about 0.5 deg F per century since 1895, but have been falling at over 17 deg F per century since 2001.
They may soon start worrying about the glaciers getting longer.
I thought I should look at 2001-2011 precipitation as well.
Annual – increasing at about 44 inches per century.
Winter – increasing at about 22 inches per century. This translates into an increase of about 18 feet of snow.
@ur momisugly -Don J. Easterbrook,
Summary
1) Rather than glacial retreat since 1904 due to gradual warming, glaciers have advanced and retreated four times in the past century.
But the retreats have all been greater than the advances, therefore the net effect is an overall retreat.
2) Glacier termini advanced from 1945 to 1977 during the time of most sharply rising atmospheric CO2,. showing that rising CO2 does not cause climatic warming.
Rising CO2 does cause global warming, but it is not instant or very great for the amount of CO2 rise from 1945-1970 and this is easily offset by natural local variations and changes in rainfall/snowfall patterns that it also causes
3) Glacier recession on Mt. Adams does not prove a gradually warming temperature.
No climatic warming has occurred during the past decade. Instead a cooling trend of -7° F per century has occurred.
A decade is too shaort a time to establish a trend, and quoting a ‘trend’ for around ten years as being a trend of 7 degrees per CENTURY is ridiculous.
4) Cooling during the past decade is not consistent with a claim of 50% reduction of Cascade snowpack caused by climatic warming.
But the climate warming (globally not just locally) over the last several decades IS a factor in the reduction in snow pack; irrespective of what has happened in the last decade.
5) The 1904 position of glacier termini resulted from strong cooling from 1880 to 1915. Comparing the position of recent minimal glacier termini following 20 years of warming from 1978 to 1998 with 1904 maximum glacier termini gives an exaggerated view of glacier recession.
Have you ANY geological evidence the glacier termini was ever LESS advanced during past warm periods?
6) Because glaciers on Mt. Rainier and Mt. Baker advanced and retreated four times in the past century, there is no basis for assuming that glaciers on Mt. Adams are retreating faster than those on nearby volcanoes.
Same error as point 1. The relative spread of retreat of the glaciers at different sites may be of local interest. But the bottom line is that all are shrinking faster than at any time on record.
Two perhaps minor nits. I would have expected a local phenomenon to be compared to local weather, instead of global temperatures. Also since the contention is from 1904 (one can attack the spremacy of this year), going inside the periods factually correct is moving the goalost in terms of criticism.
How many more times do we have to shout it from the rooftops ??
Aaaargghh, God, it`s so frustrating!
AGW is dead in the water.
Happy New Year y`all !
Don J. Easterbrook
I have only quickly looked at this but why are we looking at global rather than local temperatures?
What were the local temperatures in and around Mt Adams for the 20th century (preferably as from 1850 onwards so that we can see what may have been happening prior to 1904)?
It links correctly to the paper. What matters is Washington’s temperatures not Global temperatures (whatever that is). The paper does have a rediculous long gap betwen observations something like 1904 to 1996 and correlate between them ignoring any patterns of nearby mountains. It has some funny average temperatures rather than actual measurements- which beggers the questions why include not the measurements.
Your comment about the advance of the glacier from 1880 leading to an exaggerated measurement is similar to the problem that I have of warmists always measuring temperature rise from the coldest readings they can find.
If they want to claim warming from CO2, then they should be able to use the rate of warming from 1910 to 1940 and use the rate of increase in CO2 that we were experiencing at the time as a base. We’d need to gauge current warming against that base to determine if there was any acceleration in the rate of warming compared to the rate of increase in CO2 levels. From what I’ve seen the CO2 levels are climbing more quickly, but the rate of warming is much less.
The only conclusion I can make from this discrepancy is that additional CO2 has even less effect on temperature than we (the climate scientists) thought. Either that, or the rise in temperature was not caused by the rise in CO2 after all.
Several online personalities have consistently told me that we’ve warmed by 0.9C due to an increase in CO2. My contention is that either the early increase in CO2 should not have been able to have that much effect, or the latter increase in CO2 should have had much more effect.
Mostly, people just tell me, “you don’t understand,” and insist that I go back and re-read the published science. I’m getting really tired of that response. They refuse to look logically at the issue, and continue to appeal to authority as if “peer reviewed research” published by the right individuals is the gospel truth, and cannot be questioned.
Here is how your Figure 1 looks like:
http://bit.ly/pxXK4j
Which shows the two global coolings and the two global warmings, including the most recent warming.
Interesting post.
Nothing is fixed in nature and glaciers are no exception. Warming will cause glacier shortening but also important is precipitation. No snow, no glacier.
Glaciers do give a steady supply of water from melting but this melting is below at the ice/surface interface and due to geothermal heat. Water needed to top up aquifers for the summer comes from snowmelt not the glacier.
Seems to be this:
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.3955/046.084.0407
REPLY: Yes, that’s a 2010 paper, so why all the AP and newspaper stories about it now? – Anthony
Anthony, by far the most comprehensive, up-to-date source for data relating to PNW glaciers is the 25-year North Cascade Glacier Climate Project.
Who would have thought glacial ice-worms are real, for example?
Comprehensive data sets describing both glacier area and glacier mass can be found on this massive set of pages, which are warmly recommended to everyone who wants to look at all the Pacific Northwest glacier data, and think for themselves about what it means.
These North Cascade Glacier Climate Project pages are recommended too for everyone who cares to hike in the beautiful PNW and see for themselves what’s happening to the ice… the members of the 104-year-old Seattle-based Mountaineers — who intimately know and love the local mountains — think very highly of these web pages, and often volunteer to help scientists in compiling this data.
So visit the Pacific Northwest, and see for yourself what’s happening! 🙂
REPLY: That’s fine but it isn’t the impetus for the blitz of news articles I’m seeking. -A
So its a natural advance and retreat and yet another newspaper derived “science” report?
Tail wagging the dog methinks.
Observation – Glaciers are retreating + polar bears like to slide down slopes.
Supposition: Friction from errant polar bears is warming the glaciers and causing the retreating glaciers.
Conclusion: We should immediately shoot all polar bears to stop them from destroying the glaciers.
That fits very neatly together now where do i go for research grant?
“before CO2 began to rise sharply after 1945.”
However, direct chemical bottle CO2 data clearly shows that CO2 was as high or even much higher in the 1940s following the late 1930s warm peak. The assumption that it was consistently low until 1950 is false. Cherry-picked data by the IPCC propagandists produced a 280 ppm “historical average” 1800s CO2 value and the dishonest merging of indirect ice core data with direct Mauna Loa volcano data produced the CO2 hockey stick graph. There is no validity to this graph, particularly as they had to advance the ice core data 84 years to make it merge with the volcano data = patently fraudulent.
It is important to note, however, that the temperature crashed in the i940s while CO2 was still high, showing clearly that CO2 cannot maintain warm temperatures let alone create them.
Um. I don’t agree with the author that the temperature “has oscillated back and forth between warm and cool periods”. The sections of Figure 1 that are labelled ‘cool period’ would be better termed ‘coolING period’ – for example, the section 1999-2012 may be cooling (or not – it’s more like a plateau to my eye), but the temperature is higher than the rest of the graph.
Overall, the temperature has risen over the period shown; in fits and starts, to be sure, but it has slowly risen.
Mr. Watts:
First, let me say that I love your site an read it daily . . . however, I believe your efforts in the current regard are somewhat misplaced. The real problem with this paper lies in the implications, rather than in the assertions.
As characterized in your post, the assertions are:
1) Washington’s gradually warming temperatures have caused Mount Adams to shrink by nearly half since 1904.
2) The Mt. Adams glaciers are receding faster than those of nearby sister volcanoes.
3) The glacier recession is another sign of gradually warming temperatures.
4) The study lends urgency to an earlier federal report that shows the water content of Cascade Mountain snowpacks could dwindle by as much as 50 percent by the 2070s.
You did an excellent job of contesting both Mr Adams’ assertion that the change was “gradual” and that it was unique. Bad Mr. Adams.
Ultimately, however, it is hard to dispute that the earth is a bit warmer than it was in 1904, as it oscillates its way out of the Little Ice Age at the rate of 1.0 C / century. Unfortunately, the real problem with a paper like this is the implication that such a journey has anything to do with CO2. Based upon your account, it appears Adams did not say that. Instead, he let the unspoken allegation hang in air. You seized upon it, as will so many others.
I fear we are moving into a land of quasi-truths. Where scientist can avoid the actual allegation, knowing that the media and public will complete the sentence for them. It is a land of implication an innuendo, better occupied by politicians and charlatans than be scientist. Such will be the next five years of this debate.
REPLY: I never understand how people can miss the author of the post when it isn’t me – Anthony
Glacier termini advanced from 1945 to 1977 during the time of most sharply rising atmospheric CO2,. showing that rising CO2 does not cause climatic warming.
============
Unless there is a lag.
However, I don’t believe that there is a massive lag.
Don, thanks for this. I don’t understand the obsession with the remnants of the last ice age. Glacial retreat is a good thing.
If I had a criticism of the post, it would be the use of HadCrut global temps in a post specific to Washington state. If you were to go here—–> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/wa.html, you could have a graphic more specific to the location.
Fix figure 6 by adding PPM of CO2. Thanks!
Max
Nice critique. If the original article was published in a peer reviewed Journal will they publish this critique?
The claim that Mt Adams glaciers have receded faster than surrounding glaciers seems to indicate that global warming is not the cause. Possibly the air is drier or some other cause but since all have been subjected to similar warming the shrinkage should be similar !
Just curious if figure 1 is relevant to local events, since it represents a global view of temperature shifts? If one plots temperatures from stations local to Mt. Adams how does it compare to glacier loss? I had the same thoughts when visiting Glacier National Park and the claims of warming causing retreat. How does the local climate look over the time period, since (maybe naive) it seemed to me that local events would dominate any global effect. I never found the time to look at the sites around Glacier National Park though.
The same for Swiss glaciers.
http://glaciology.ethz.ch/messnetz/live/messnetz/lc_stat_en.png
There was a study published last year, linking their variation to AMO index.
In ‘climate science’ there is probably a strong correlation between bad science content and the amount of grants received.
In ‘climate science’ practice, the scarier the story, the worse the science and the greater the grant amounts.
Not very impressed.
a) The assertion do not refer to CO2 so why go on about it? Perhaps it’s in the paper referred to, but we have no reference so how could we know.
b) Figures 4a and 4b have caoptions with dates that to not match the figures.
c) Figure 6 has a CO2 axis but no corresponding data.
I think this should be withdrawn and reworked.
REPLY: item B was my fault, not Don’s due to the way the paper was formatted in word it stripped captions from the figures when I imported it, and I accidentally reversed them. Fixed. I’ll leave your spelling error 😉
– Anthony
Izen asks:
“Have you ANY geological evidence [that] the glacier termini [were] ever LESS advanced during past warm periods?”
Did it occur to you that since photodocumentation only goes back to the late 1800s, the evidence would be, um, under the current glaciers? Those would be cruel working conditions, even for a grad student!